[1] Criteria for determining "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[2] The case holding that in a case where the defendant's vehicle operated by the defendant is "hazardous goods" as provided by Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, in a case where the defendant's vehicle driven by the defendant and the driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver

[1] Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to human life or body when using the thing in light of social norms. Such determination criteria also apply where a motor vehicle causes harm to human life or body, or damages another person’s property.

[2] The case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in a case where the defendant's act of causing bodily harm to Gap and the damage of Gap's automobile constitutes a crime of carrying a "hazardous article" as provided by Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, although it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of causing bodily harm to Gap and the act of damaging Gap's automobile constitutes an act of causing bodily harm to Gap, since it is reasonable to see that the defendant's act of causing bodily harm to Gap's own automobile is a crime of carrying a "hazardous article" as provided by Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, since it is reasonable to see that the defendant's act of causing bodily harm to Gap and the act of damaging Gap's automobile is an act of carrying a "hazardous article" as provided by Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

[1] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act / [2] Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do597 Decided May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1961) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do271 Decided February 23, 2001 (Gong2002Do5783 Decided January 24, 2003) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3520 Decided February 28, 2008 (Gong2007Do3520 Decided March 26, 2009)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Handeok, Attorneys Kim Jong-won et al.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010No136 decided July 16, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to human life or body when using the thing in light of social norms. Such determination criteria likewise apply to cases where a person inflicts harm on human life or body or damages another person’s property using a motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3520, Mar. 26, 2009, etc.).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the circumstances as stated in its holding, and comprehensively considered the situation before and after the crime of this case and the degree of damage to the victim, and determined that the defendant's use of the motor vehicle of this case did not lead to the harm of life or body of the victim or a third party due to the operation of the motor vehicle of this case (hereinafter "motor vehicle of this case") in light of social norms, and that it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's use of the motor vehicle of this case was carrying "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, even if all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor are comprehensive, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's use of the motor vehicle of this case constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc., bodily injury) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant continued to follow the vehicle of this case which was driven by the victim immediately after the dispute arises at the time of driving between the victim and the victim, and the victim stated in the court below that the distance between the vehicle of this case and the vehicle of this case was 4 to 5 meters at the time of the collision. Meanwhile, according to the records, the victim stated in the prosecutor's office that the vehicle of this case was at the time of collision with the vehicle of this case, "the defendant was driven by the vehicle of this case, and the victim tried to avoid the collision with the vehicle of this case by inserting about 4 to 5 meters soon after the vehicle of this case was driven by the victim."

In light of the above legal principles, considering that the defendant's towing of the instant vehicle was in conflict with the victim's vehicle in order to put the victim hot, and the original vehicle itself is not an scambling or a destructive object, the collision between the victim and the victim's vehicle in the same situation as at the time of the collision between the instant vehicle and the victim's vehicle, resulting in a scambling danger to the victim's life or body. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of damaging the victim's vehicle was committed by carrying the "hazardous goods" as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there was no proof of a crime in the charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., a deadly weapon, etc.) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Meanwhile, in the instant case, the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act), which is the part not guilty of the lower court’s appeal, are in the relation between the crime of causing bodily harm and the crime of causing bodily harm (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) committed by the lower court and the crime of causing bodily harm (a violation of Article 2 of the judgment of the lower court), which was found guilty, and the crime of causing bodily harm (a crime of causing bodily harm) committed by the lower court, which was found guilty together with the crime of causing bodily harm (a crime of causing bodily harm) committed by the first instance court and the crime of causing bodily harm in Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, even if the Defendant or the prosecutor did not appeal against the crime of causing bodily harm (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8034, Aug. 20,

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)