logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 10. 8. 선고 85도1851 판결
[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][공1985.12.1.(765),1515]
Main Issues

The meaning of "Carrying" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Summary of Judgment

The term "Carrying" of dangerous objects under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to carrying the following dangerous objects, which are intended to be used in committing a crime at the scene of the crime, and therefore, it cannot be said that the mailing the degree of 2g of the liquidation salt reaches the victim by mailing them in a letter of intimidation.

[Reference Provisions]

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

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 81Do3074 Delivered on February 23, 1982, 83Do2959 Delivered on January 31, 1984

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court Decision 85No1231 delivered on July 18, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term “Carrying” of a dangerous object as referred to in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to carrying a dangerous object under the intention to use at the scene of crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed as carrying a dangerous object as referred to in the above Article 3(1) of the same Act merely by mailing the degree of 2g of liquidation salt to the victim by means of intimidation. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow