Whether handdogs constitute swords prescribed by the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (negative)

Article 4 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act stipulates that Article 4 (1) 10 of the same Act is in the form of swords prescribed in Article 4 (1) 1 through 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act pursuant to the latter part of Article 2 (2) of the same Act, among those whose blade's length is less than 15cm but whose blade's length is not less than 6cm and there is a clear danger that they may be used as lethal weapons as one of the types of swords. Thus, it is clear that knick does not constitute swords prescribed in the same

Article 2(2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, Article 4(1)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

A

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 98No2934 delivered on December 31, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 (2) of the Guns, Swords, Explosives, etc. Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "swords" shall be defined as those prescribed by Presidential Decree from among those with an obvious risk of being used as lethal weapons even if the blade's length is less than 15§¯ in light of their nature, and even if the blade's length is less than 15§¯, it shall be defined as those of which the danger of being used as such weapons. Thus, swords prescribed by Presidential Decree in the latter part of Article 2 (2) of the Act are clearly defined as 5§¯ in length and 4440 centimeters or more from among those used as lethal weapons in light of their nature, and their blades are less than 15§¯ in length and 500§¯ in length and 500 or more from among those used as such weapons, and the automatic equipment related to Article 4 (1) and (2) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act shall be defined as 500 cm or more in length and 50000 cm in length [1.4 cm or more cm in length and 5 cm in length.

Therefore, in full view of the above provisions, Article 4 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates that Article 4 (1) 10 of the Act is in the form of swords under Article 4 (1) 1 through 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act pursuant to the provision of the latter part of Article 2 (2) of the Act, among those whose blade is less than 15§¯ but whose blade length is more than 6cm and there is a clear danger that they may be used as lethal weapons.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, it is justified that the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the type or form itself does not constitute swords prescribed in the Guns, Swords, Explosives Control Act even if the Defendant possesses the instant grandchildren, it does not fall under Article 71 subparagraph 1 or Article 12 (1) of the Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the definition of swords under Article 2 (2) of the Act and Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)