The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the act in the instant facts charged did not constitute carrying as provided in Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The "Carrying a dangerous object" under Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act means carrying a dangerous object under the intention of using it at the scene of a crime, and merely carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object, it is not presumed that the crime under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is likely to be public, but if there is no other specific criminal act without any justifiable reason, even if there is no other specific criminal act, the act itself meets the element of the crime under Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2439, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.). Therefore, whether the crime of this case against the defendant was established depends on whether the defendant had a justifiable reason in carrying a deadly weapon (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2439, Jun. 28, 2007). The judgment below did not have any justifiable reason as to whether there was a "the intention to use it at the scene of a crime" under the above Article.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.