Whether the crime of using explosives is established separately where explosives have been used with the intention of murder.

Crimes of using explosives under Article 119(1) of the Criminal Act shall harm human life, body and property by using explosives.

If an act is committed, it shall be deemed as an act of disturbance of public peace, and as such, it shall be deemed that it constitutes the elements of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the use of explosives in addition to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of murder, if

Articles 40 and 119 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gangnam branch court of the Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (71 Gohap42)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

The seized evidence 2 (one detonating cap) shall be confiscated from the defendant.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the crime of using explosives under Article 119(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the act of causing harm to human life, body, or property by using explosives itself constitutes an act of disturbing the public peace. Thus, the crime of using explosives should be established in the event that there is an act of damaging human life, body, or property or an act of causing such danger by using explosives. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the defendant was acquitted of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no proof as to the result of the disturbance of public peace, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the crime of using explosives under Article 119 (1) of the Criminal Act is an act that causes harm to people's life, body, or property by using explosives as an act that causes harm to people's life, body, or property, and that it constitutes the elements of the crime. In light of the above, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant entered the same person's room with a dynaart for mine, which is explosives, for the purpose of killing the victim non-indicted 1, thereby causing harm to the same person by explosion, and further damaging them. Thus, the defendant's crime of using explosives is established in addition to the crime of attempted murder.

However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges of using explosives for the same reason as exhibition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of using explosives. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

On May 25, 1971, the Defendant: (a) as a person working in a luminous part in his residence, and due to the fact that he was wraped with Nonindicted Party 1, the victim Nonindicted Party 2, the front house located in his residence, and due to the fact that he was dried up with Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendant 2, who was the victim, and that it was caused to dried up and dried up, the Defendant’s punishment, and that it was dried up to dried up, and then dried up to home, he was dried up at the newspaper at approximately 0:20 on May 27, 1971, with the aim of killing it as divers for mines stored in the Defendant house, at the same time, at 14% of the number of the victims of Nonindicted Party 1, who were placed in front of her visit, and at the same time, she was released from 1,000, and then dried out of the front bar and dried out of the bar.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement that conforms to the facts stated in the trial process of the defendant;

1. Statement consistent with the facts in the trial records of the original instance; and

1. Each statement in the trial records of the court below to the effect that it conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of non-indicted 1, 3, and 4

1. Statement to the same effect as indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. The diagnosis report on the part and degree of injury as indicated in its reasoning, among the diagnosis report on the injury in Nonindicted 4 Preparation

The defendant made a statement in the court below and the court of the trial that he had no memory at the time of the crime, and eventually, it appears that he had a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime. However, examining all the evidence mentioned above, it is recognized that the defendant did not have had a degree of impact on the ability to distinguish things and the ability to make a decision, although he was aware that he had a little drinking at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant did not have a degree of impact on the ability to discern things and the ability

applicable provisions

Article 119(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the use of explosives in the judgment below of the defendant shall be limited to four years of imprisonment within the term of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant, and Article 250(1) and Article 254 of the same Act provides that a single act constitutes several crimes. Since one of the above acts constitutes several crimes, Article 40 of the Criminal Act requires that the defendant be punished for a limited term of imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant shall be punished for a limited term of imprisonment with prison labor for the reason that there are reasons to take into account the circumstances, Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act shall apply within the term of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant within the period of 125 days of detention days prior to the sentence of the judgment below pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act, and Article 48(1)2 (a) of the same Act shall be forfeited from the defendant by applying Article 48(1)1 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Man-hee (Presiding Judge) and Lee Young-hee