Whether Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which provides that a person who commits a "bruptive assault with a deadly weapon" shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year, goes against the constitutional ideology, such as the principle of excessive prohibition (negative)

Articles 12(1) and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(1)1 and 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Supreme Court Order 2008Hu202, 2007Do6188 Decided June 26, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1095) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10340 Decided October 29, 2009

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Li-ra

Incheon District Court Decision 2013No1639 Decided July 26, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The issue of how to punish a certain crime, i.e., the choice of the type and scope of the statutory penalty, requires a wide range of legislative discretion, and it shall not be readily concluded that it violates the Constitution. In the event that Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that a person who commits a crime of violence by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles shall be punished by imprisonment for more than one year, is subject to such freedom of legislative formation, and such provision is not easy to say that the provision contravenes the constitutional ideology such as the principle of excessive prohibition or the principle of proportionality or the principle of clarity of penal laws (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10340, Oct. 29, 2009). As such, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is unconstitutional, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on invalidation is not acceptable.

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)