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

(b) The meaning of "Carrying" under Article 3 (1) of the same Act;

A. For the purpose of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the term "crimes in the preceding Article" refers to "crimes in each Article of the Criminal Act" as stipulated in Article 2 (1) of the same Act, and it is interpreted that it does not refer to habitual crimes, night crimes, or two or more co-offenders in each Article of the Criminal Act.

B. The carrying of Article 3(1) of the above Act is the same as the carrying, and thus it is not necessary to carry a lethal weapon in his body before the crime is committed.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 72Do305 delivered on April 28, 1972, 73Do2104 delivered on October 10, 1973, Supreme Court Decision 81Do3074 delivered on February 23, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Chang-sik

Daejeon District Court Decision 83No597 delivered on October 5, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine records, accept the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below, and there is no error of law in the process of the deliberation or evidence preparation.

2. For the purpose of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the term "crimes under the preceding Article" refers to "crimes under each Article of the Criminal Act" in the opportunity to Article 2 (1) of the same Act, and it is interpreted that it does not refer to habitual crimes, night crimes, or two or more co-offenders under each of the above Articles of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 72Do305 delivered on April 28, 1972 and Supreme Court Decision 73Do2104 delivered on October 10, 1973). The carrying of a deadly weapon under Article 3 (1) of the above Act does not need to carry a deadly weapon before the crime is committed, since it is replaced with the same meaning as carrying the deadly weapon. For the same purport, the measures taken by the court below that committed the crime under Article 3 (2) and (1) of the above Act are justified and there is no misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the theory of appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)