The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around the Gu-U.S.A. 19:20, on the grounds that the Defendant: (b) reported and instructed a juvenile smoking tobacco on the way; (c) on the ground that the juvenile does not listen to the horse, he/she carried with him/her any dangerous weapons that are dangerous articles inside the house (30cm in total length, 18cm in length) in his/her hand, and carried with him/her dangerous weapons that are likely to be commonly used for committing a crime without justifiable grounds, such as going through a knife with B, going through a knife, going through a knife, going through a knife with a knife, knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife.

2. In full view of the general legal principles and details of the amendment of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the legislative intent and text of Article 7 of the same Act, the structure of language and text, nature and establishment requirements, etc., it is reasonable to interpret the term “crimes prescribed by this Act” under Article 7 of the same Act only means “crimes prescribed by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7687, Sept. 21, 2017). The prosecutor must prove that the Defendant carried a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles that are likely to be used for a crime prescribed by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

However, the facts charged of this case did not state any indication as to how the defendant carried a knife with the intent to use for any crime under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is likely to commit the crimes prescribed by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, such as jointly violent crimes with more than two defendants or repeated crimes.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, it has been proved that the defendant carried a knife with a knife that is likely to be commonly used in the "crimes stipulated in this Act" beyond reasonable doubt

Now may be seen ( even if the defendant had a deadly weapon at the time, intimidation or threat.