[1] Criteria for determining "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[2] The case holding that the above "fire extinguishing machine" does not constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, in full view of the fact that the "fire extinguishing machine" was collected while drinking in the bicycle and boat office, but was not matched by a specific person

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act / [2] Articles 2 (1) 1 and 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do1046 Decided July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 664) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783 Decided January 24, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 752) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do176 Decided May 14, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9624 Decided January 17, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520 Decided March 26, 2009 (Gong209Sang, 588)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Dong-chul

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009No1671 Decided December 28, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1046, Jul. 28, 1981; 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and held that it is difficult to view the defendant's act of taking advantage of social norms and the fact that it did not cause harm to the victim or a third party to life or body due to the defendant's act of taking advantage of various circumstances such as the fact that, under the influence of alcohol, many employees of the bicycle race track including the victims of the horse race tickets were prevented from participating in the bicycle race track, and the defendant was employed by the above employees who entered the bicycle race track office and entered the bicycle race track office, and that the defendant was unable to take a disturbance by taking advantage of the above employees' 5-6. The defendant did not seem to have taken advantage of a specific person, and that there was no injury to the victim, and therefore, it does not constitute a violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the defendant.

In light of the above legal principles, we affirm the above determination by the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)