The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides, “A person who carries, provides, or arranges the provision of, the deadly weapons or other dangerous articles that are likely to be used for a crime prescribed in this Act without any justifiable reason, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding three million won.” However, where Article 3(4) of the Punishment of Violences Act does not include the crime prescribed in this Act, “an offense” as referred to in the above provision cannot be punished pursuant to Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (the prosecutor appealed for the benefit of the defendant).

A. In the past, the Constitutional Court ruled that the statutory punishment was unconstitutional on the grounds that the provision of partial aggravated punishment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is in violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution by losing the legitimacy and balance of the penal system, and thus violating the principle of equality. On September 24, 2015, the Criminal Act was amended by Act No. 7891 of March 24, 2006 (amended by Act No. 12896 of Dec. 30, 2014), and Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act (amended by Act No. 12896 of Dec. 30, 2014), and Article 260(1)(i) and Article 283(1)(ii) and Article 36(3) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1286 of Dec. 16, 206) of the same Act with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles are unconstitutional.