[1] The criteria for determining "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and whether it constitutes "hazardous goods" (affirmative)

[2] Whether the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established only when the victim, etc. recognizes the existence of a dangerous object or use of such dangerous object and thereby inflict bodily harm on his/her life or body (negative)

[3] The case holding that the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established when two motor vehicles are damaged by a motor vehicle

[1] Whether a certain object constitutes “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined by whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to life or body when using the object in light of social norms. If a motor vehicle was not originally made for the purpose of killing or destroying but was used for causing harm to human life or body or destroying another person’s property, it constitutes “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

[2] The crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established even if the other party did not recognize the existence of a dangerous object if he/she destroys another person's property while carrying a dangerous object, or did not use such dangerous object to cause harm to his/her life or body.

[3] The case holding that the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established even if the owner, etc. of a motor vehicle did not actually harm or have any sufficient location to harm another person's two motor vehicles by using the motor vehicle

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do1046 decided Jul. 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 1423), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1570 decided Dec. 22, 1989 (Gong1990, 424) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2527 decided Dec. 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 816), Supreme Court Decision 96Do3411 decided Feb. 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1021), Supreme Court Decision 97Do597 decided May 30, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 1961), Supreme Court Decision 209Do29497 decided Feb. 27, 1998 (Gong1997Ha, 1961), Supreme Court Decision 97Do29497 decided Apr. 29, 196)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Choi Choi-soo

Seoul District Court Decision 2002No8524 delivered on October 8, 2002

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. The judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged of this case, the court below held that the crime of damage by carrying dangerous articles under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act was established only when the owner of the goods or a third party could have caused specific danger to his/her own life or body by using dangerous articles. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence suggesting that there was no person aboard a vehicle damaged at the time, and there was no person on board the vehicle at the time and there was a person at a location to actually suffer harm or danger to another person due to the crime of damage of this case, since Kim Dong-dong could not be deemed to have caused specific danger to his/her life or body, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act cannot be applied and Article 366 of the Criminal Act cannot be established only for the crime of damage of this case, since Kim Dong-dong could not be deemed to have committed the crime of damage of this case merely because he/she reported that he/she actually suffered harm or harm to another person due to the crime of damage of this case.

2. The judgment of this Court

In a specific case, whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to life or body when using the dangerous thing in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do4146, Nov. 9, 199). If a motor vehicle was not originally made for the purpose of killing or destroying but was used for causing harm to human life or body or destroying another’s property, it constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). Meanwhile, even if the other party did not recognize the existence of the dangerous thing if it was destroyed by carrying a dangerous thing, or the other party did not place it for the life or body of the dangerous thing, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established.

Therefore, as long as the defendant damages two motor vehicles of another person using a dangerous object, even if the owner, etc. of the motor vehicle does not actually harm or injure it, the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be reversed. Since the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act are sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety. Therefore, the case shall be remanded

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)