Whether each item is "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act.

Whether an article capable of killing a person is a dangerous article under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined depending on whether or not the other party or a third party could feel a danger and injury when using the article in light of social norms, depending on specific cases. Thus, in a case where the other party’s hacks the head with a pipe (2 meters in length, 5 cent meters in diameter) and raises a hacks against it, each item (1 meters in length, 5 cent in diameter) of the above provision cannot be deemed as a dangerous article under the above provision of the law.

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form896 Delivered on January 18, 1961

Defendant

Attorney-at-law (Korean) population

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No7820 decided Feb. 17, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the defendant's act of 2 meters in length, 5 centimeters in diameter and 1 meter in length, 5 centimeters in diameter and 2 cm in diameter against the defendant at the court below's ruling, and as to the act of sprinking the above defendant's sprink in the above judgment, the above item cannot be viewed as a dangerous object under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, on the ground that it cannot be viewed as a dangerous object under Article 2 (2) of the same Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, in view of the relation with the hack pipe used by the defendant at the court below and the motive for using it.

According to records, each item of the above cannot be deemed to be a dangerous object due to its nature, such as a knife, total knife, or knife, as well as an object which can kill a person according to its usage, also constitutes a dangerous object as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. The risk of such an object shall be determined based on whether the other party or the third party is deemed to have caused the danger immediately when using the object in light of social norms according to specific cases, according to the records (see Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form896 delivered on January 18, 1961). In addition, considering the circumstances in which the defendant used the object, each item of the above cannot be deemed to be a dangerous object due to its nature, and since the defendant or the general third party, who is the other party, was not considered to have caused the danger, it shall not be deemed to be a dangerous object as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the same Act. Thus, the judgment below's judgment is justified.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)