The meaning of "Carrying" of dangerous objects as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

"Carrying of dangerous objects" as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes not only the possession of dangerous objects under the intention to use them in committing the crime at the scene of the crime, but also the wide use of them. Thus, the defendant's act of driving a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous object in accordance with the method of use, and causing an injury to a person who is carrying a dangerous object, constitutes a case where the defendant carried a dangerous object.

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 3504, Oct. 23, 1984) (Law No. 1984, Oct. 23, 1984) (Law No. 1984, 1876) and 85Do1591, Sept. 24, 1985 (Gong1985, 1462)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court (Law No. 443, 500 delivered on December 28, 1993)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by imprisonment for one year.

Among the detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 165 days for Defendant 1, and 155 days for Defendant 2 shall be included in the above sentence against the Defendants.

As to Defendant 1’s summary of the grounds of appeal, the first instance court found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and the first instance court found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the charges, despite the fact that Defendant 2 violated the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and the first instance court found Defendant 2’s summary of the grounds of appeal as to Defendant 2’s violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., the traffic accident where the collision between the victim 1 driver’s vehicle and the vehicle driven by the Defendant occurred, and the second instance court found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence and finding Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the charges, despite the fact that Defendant 2 caused the injury to the victim, even though the second instance court did not err in the misapprehension of the above part of the charges.

Therefore, in light of the records, the evidence duly adopted by the court below as to the first ground for appeal by the Defendants is examined as to the first ground for appeal by the Defendants, and the above part of the defendants' criminal facts are sufficient to be recognized, and therefore, the appeal is without merit.

Next, the second ground of appeal by Defendant 1 is examined as to the above defendant 1's second ground of appeal. The court below, at around 19:55 on July 1, 1993 among the facts charged against the above defendant, brought about about 10 meters a rodin passenger car, which is an object dangerous in the intersection of the rodin building in the Dong and Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and then brought about a rodin passenger car, and made it possible to bring the rodin car into several times for the above defendant 1 getting out of the rodin car. The above defendant's vehicle's front part of the above defendant's vehicle, which requires more than two weeks medical treatment, was damaged by the victim's right side and the rodin part of the above defendant's vehicle's accident requiring more than 4.26,000 won, and it is hard to see that the defendant used the above rodin vehicle in front of the above danger of injury or injury to the defendant's body at the front of the above defendant's body.

However, since Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes not only the possession of dangerous goods and the wide use thereof, the above defendant's act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim and destroying the victim's vehicle using a royalty free car as decided by the court below, despite the application of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to carrying dangerous goods by applying Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to the above act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, even if the above escape was sentenced to one punishment as concurrent crime, it cannot be exempt from the reversal without the need to determine the remaining grounds for appeal by the above defendant.

Finally, with respect to the second ground for appeal by Defendant 2, considering various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as health team, the above defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record relation, motive, means, methods and result of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime was committed, in particular, an agreement with the victim, etc., the lower court's sentencing against the above defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the lower court's reversal cannot be avoided.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

Criminal facts against Defendant 1

1. (A) On July 1, 193, 193.7.1, at the same time, Defendant 1 was trying to get off the above 6th floor of the public prosecutor's office which was located in the above 3th public prosecutor's office, and to get off the above 4th public prosecutor's office, the above 6th public prosecutor's office located in the 3rd public prosecutor's office and the above 1st public prosecutor's office which was located in the 2nd public prosecutor's office in order to get off the above 4th public prosecutor's office, and to get off the above 1st public prosecutor's office and the above 1st public prosecutor's office which was located in the 1st public prosecutor's office in charge of the above 4th public prosecutor's office and the 1st public prosecutor's office in charge of the above 6th public prosecutor's office. The 1st public prosecutor's office in charge of the above 1st public prosecutor's office and the 1st public prosecutor's office's office in charge.

2. The criminal facts against Defendant 2 and the summary of the evidence against the Defendants, which the members acknowledged, are the same as the written judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of inflicting an injury on the carrying of a dangerous object as determined by Defendant 1);

(b) Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act. Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing damage to a dangerous article in the judgment of Defendant 1);

(c) Article 145 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of escape as decided by the defendant 1);

(d) Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury as indicated in the judgment of the defendant 2 and the choice of imprisonment);

(e) Article 151 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of harboring an offender and choice of imprisonment);

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Punishment of Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as in the Judgment of Defendant 1, and Punishment of Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act due to Bodily Injury as in the Judgment of Defendant 1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendant 1) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to Defendant 1)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges transferred (Presiding Judge)-type Kim Jong-sung