2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) As to the mistake of facts, the question of how to punish a crime under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Act”) is unconstitutional, i.e., the selection of the type and scope of statutory penalty should be recognized, and the broad legislative discretion should be recognized, and the determination of the type and scope of statutory penalty should not be readily concluded that it violates the Constitution.

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the breadth Act provide that a person who commits a crime of violence or damage to property by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year. Such a freedom of legislative formation belongs to the freedom of legislative formation. It cannot be easily said that the provision contravenes the constitutional ideology, such as the principle of excessive prohibition or proportionality, or the principle of clarity of penal regulations.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10340 Decided October 29, 2009, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9705 Decided October 17, 2013, respectively). This part of the allegation that Article 3(1) of the breadth Act is unconstitutional is rejected.

(2) Whether the crime committed by the defendant constitutes a "hazardous object" under Article 3 (1) of the breadth Act includes all things that can be used to harm human life and body, even though they are not a deadly weapon. Thus, it includes not only the items made for the purpose of killing or destroying human life but also the knife, knife, glass bottle, various tools, vehicles, etc. made for other purposes, such as chemical drugs or dead animals, etc., used for causing harm to human life and body, and also includes not only the phrase "hazardous object" under this Article, but also the phrase "Carrying such things."

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812 delivered on September 6, 2002.