All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (the lower court’s punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year)

B. Prosecutor 1) Under Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, the term “ deadly weapon” refers to an apparatus that may inflict bodily harm on human life and body by its structure or nature, and it is reasonable to understand it with the same meaning as a deadly dangerous object, not limited to a deadly weapon in a strict sense, such as a gun or knife. However, in a case where the general public does not reach the degree of causing danger to its usage, it should not be viewed as a deadly weapon. In addition, the issue of a deadly weapon is determined according to the objective nature of the dangerous object, and it shall be an objective object appropriate for causing physical harm. However, in the special larceny crime of this case, a saw carried by the Defendant is an object capable of causing physical harm, and its objective nature is appropriate to the extent that the general public causes danger to its use, and thus, it constitutes a deadly weapon. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of unfair sentencing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine clearly separates deadly weapons and dangerous objects. As such, penal provisions should be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

In addition, Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that "the act of theft of another person's property by carrying a deadly weapon shall be punished as an aggravated punishment for special larceny."