A. The act of launching an air gun for the purpose of misunderstanding of facts or threatening a person by misunderstanding of legal principles is itself realizing a typical risk of a gun called a threat of human life, and uses the firearms permitted for harmful water purposes for other than the purpose of use.

Therefore, even though it is obvious that Article 17(2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (hereinafter “Guns Control Act”) is violated, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 40 hours of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(a) A person who is permitted to possess a gun on the summary of this part of the facts charged shall not use the gun except for the permitted use or any other justifiable ground;

그럼에도 피고인은 2014. 4. 28. 19:15경 화성시 C에 있는 D식당에서 E에게 “총으로 쏴 죽인다.”라고 말하며 유해조수 용도(허가번호 : G)로 허가받아 보관 중이던 공기총을 꺼내어 들고 총구가 하늘로 향하자 1회 격발하여 E을 협박하는 용도로 사용하였다.

B. The lower court’s judgment is reasonable to interpret the penal provisions as strictly, and to interpret the meaning of the explicit penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the Defendant is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013); ① The prior meaning of “use” is “in compliance with a certain purpose or function”; ② it is reasonable to limit the use of a gun to mean a method of using a gun in which it is shot, and to interpret it in other cases.