beta
Main Issues
Whether a garrison used by a foundation constitutes a deadly weapon under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (affirmative)
Summary of Judgment
Gabs used for the foundation from the two uniforms are dangerous objects that can kill and injure people when they are used as a tool for committing the crime, and thus, they constitute deadly weapons under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act
Defendant
Defendant
Appellant
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney Park Dong-young
Judgment of the lower court
Incheon District Court Decision 84No725 delivered on December 20, 1984
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are also examined.
The issue is that the defendant's name, which was used as a foundation at the time of the crime of this case, was not a deadly weapon in the name, which was used by the defendant at the two uniforms. However, there is no doubt that it can be viewed as a deadly weapon as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act because it is a dangerous object that can kill people when using it as a tool for crime of this case.
In addition, the issue is that the defendant filed an appeal to the expiration of the current suspended period after a trial is held in another case, but this reason cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and thirty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)