[2] The case holding that "the purpose of capturing wild animals" of Article 70 subparagraph 14 of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the defendant opened a window of the above vehicle and operated a low speed agricultural road under the influence of one air gun with coal known inside the vehicle, and the defendant made a secret to the extent appropriate for catching ostrine immediately before regulating the violation of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act

[2] The case holding that "the purpose of capturing wild animals" of Article 70 subparagraph 14 of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the defendant opened a window of the above vehicle and operated under the circumstances where he was loaded with coal in the vehicle and operated under low speed agricultural roads, and that it was done in an appropriate manner to capture phheita immediately before regulating the violation of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act

In light of the following: (a) the purpose of capturing wild animals under Article 70 Subparag. 14 of the Wild Fauna and Flora Protection Act is to recognize “the purpose of capturing wild animals” as being “the purpose of capturing wild animals,” if a gun is carried with a gun in a state where it can shoot at any time; (b) the Defendant opened a window and operated at a slow speed despite the weather weather in February; (c) the Defendant was placed immediately adjacent to the air gun that was in possession at the time of detection; (d) the air gun was charged with the ball gun; and (e) one of them was charged with the ball gun; and (e) one of them was charged in the powder room to immediately shoot; (e) the place where the Defendant operated a vehicle at the time; and (e) it was a very prudenty and good weather even after trine; and (e) the Defendant was not guilty of the fact that there was an error in the judgment of the court below as to the charge of finding the Defendant guilty of the justifiable purpose of capturing wild animals.

2. Determination:

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant is prohibited from hunting in an area where hunting is prohibited, such as an area within 100 meters on the road, and for this purpose, even if the defendant should not have any firearms and live live together, and as a result, the appropriate weather conditions for capturing ostrine, such as rain unloading, etc., came to go back to the nearby wild mountain, and for the purpose of hunting wild animals, the defendant returned to the nearby mountain, and around February 11:30, 2007, Chocheon-gu, Chocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Agricultural Cooperative of the Kacheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but around the road near the (vehicle registration number omitted), at the top of the air gun in the (vehicle registration number omitted), he was operated the vehicle with a gun and live live together with it by looking at the vicinity of the above vehicle while opening the windows.

B. The judgment of the court below

On the premise that Article 70 subparag. 14 of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act, which is the applicable legal provision of this case, is contrary to the principle of clarity, the court below should reasonably limit and interpret it. On the premise that around the road operated by the defendant, most of the areas around the road including the general public and dry field, people passed the end, and the main road and the main road were not far far away from the main road, and there was a narrow and old speed that it was difficult to speed, and it is difficult to find a way for the defendant to enter once, and there was no rain at the time of detection. At the time, it seems that the defendant was carrying the sprink, and even before that time, the defendant was engaged in shooting practice, and the defendant was in possession of legitimate possession, etc., the court below held that the above road and its surrounding areas were a place where people can walk, and that the defendant cannot be seen as a place where the defendant was not found to possess a gun for the purpose of hunting, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant was not found to have a gun operated by the prosecutor.

C. Judgment of the court below

Article 70 Subparag. 14 of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act provides that "a person who carries a gun and live ammunition for the purpose of catching wild animals in violation of the provisions of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act" shall be punished. It is clear in the law that it is an offense for which "the purpose of catching wild animals" as an element for the establishment of an offense, other than intention, is an excessive illegal element, and its purpose is not required to be active or conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient if there is doluence. Whether the purpose has been carried out shall be determined reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account all the circumstances such as the place and time of the firearms and live ammunition, whether the wild animals had already been captured or intended to have been captured before control, the status of possession of belongings other than firearms and live bullets, the occupation and work experience of the defendant, etc.

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant had been using the above 2-day gun 1:30 on February 25, 2007, which was the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and the defendant had been using the above 2-day gun 1:30 on February 25, 200, but it was hard to see that the defendant was using the 3-day gun 2-day gun 1:0 on July 25, 200, and the defendant was using the above 2-day gun 1:0 on July 25, 200, and it was not found that the defendant had been using the 2-day gun 1:6-day gun ; the defendant was using the 3-day gun 2-day gun 1:0 on July 25, 2007, and it was found that the above 2-day air gun 1:00 on July 25, 2006.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of crime as to the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of mistake of facts.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Red motors (Presiding Judge) Kim Dog-ro