Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-chul (prosecution) and Park Jin-Jin (Trial)

Law Firm Future Law Firm, Attorney Kim Maritime Shelf

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

When Defendant 1 (Defendant 3) fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

Defendant 1 is the chief development officer of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) in Kimhae-si, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing chemical carbon.

1. Defendant 1

Any person who desires to blast or burn powders shall obtain permission from the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the place where powders are used.

Nevertheless, on June 2014, the Defendant: (a) laid down a scopic scoper located in the Scopical Station of Kimhae-si ( Address 6 omitted) without obtaining permission from the chief of the competent police station; and (b) burned the scopic with fire into the scopic dK-38S 5

2. Defendant Company

Defendant 1, who is an employee of the defendant, committed a violation as referred to in the preceding paragraph in connection with the duties of the defendant.

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

1. A written accusation;

1. Summary of the assertion

According to the proviso to Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”), a person prescribed by Presidential Decree may blast explosives without permission from the chief of the competent police station, and Article 15 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26858, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that “a person who is able to possess explosives on duty pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes” shall be permitted to use explosives without permission. The Defendants may possess explosives on duty as a manufacturer and his/her employees prescribed in subparagraphs 2 and 9 of Article 10 of the former Act, so even if they possess explosives without permission from the chief of the competent police station, they shall not be punished pursuant to the former Act.

2. Relevant statutes;

Gu Act

Article 10 (Prohibition of Possession)

No person shall possess guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows without permission, except in any of the following cases:

1. Where a person possesses guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows for official duties under statutes;

2. Where a manufacturer under Article 4 (1) or (2) possesses guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows manufactured by him/her;

9. Where an employee of a person falling under any of subparagraphs 2 through 8 possesses guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows for the performance of his/her duties;

Article 18 (Use of Powders)

(1) Any person who intends to blast or burn explosives shall obtain permission for the use of explosives from the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the place where explosives are used, under conditions prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs: Provided, That the same shall not apply to persons who mine minerals under

Enforcement Decree of the Gu Act

Article 15 (Persons who can Use Powders without Permission on Use)

4. A person legally entitled to possess powders for the performance of duty;

3. Determination

In light of the fact that Article 10 subparag. 2 and subparag. 9 of the former Act provide that “a person who may possess explosives on duty” under Article 15 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act is “a person who may possess explosives on duty” and Article 10 subparag. 2 and subparag. 9 of the same Act, but Article 10 subparag. 1 of the former Act provides that “if a person possesses explosives on duty, etc. according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” in the same manner, a manufacturer and his/her employees under Articles 10 subparag. 2 and 10 subparag. 9 of the former Act cannot be construed as “a person who possesses explosives on duty pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes”, and ② a powder manufacturer and his/her employees need to possess explosives in the process of manufacturing and selling them, and do not permit them to possess explosives directly. In light of the fact that Article 10 subparag. 2 and 9 of the former Act does not permit them to possess explosives.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Subparagraph 2 of Article 71 and the main sentence of Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015);

B. Defendant 2 Company: Article 76, Article 71 Subparag. 2, and the main sentence of Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015);

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Park Jong-do