Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Jong-chul (prosecution) and Park Jin-Jin (Trial)

Law Firm Future Law Firm, Attorney Kim Maritime Shelf

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,00, by a fine of KRW 2,000,000, by a fine of KRW 2,000,00, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 3) by a fine of KRW 500,00.

When Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 fail to pay the above fine, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

【2015 Highest 2960】

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) located in Kimhae-si ( Address 1 omitted), and Defendant Co., Ltd is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing chemical carbon.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Where a powders maker intends to modify the kinds or methods of manufacturing of powders manufactured, he shall obtain permission from the competent authorities;

Nevertheless, on August 2014, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, the Defendant added NC to the composition of the product that was permitted to be the largest lux (DK-40) at the location of the Defendant Company, and changed the type and manufacturing method of powders by manufacturing DK-40FB (alumum) 77,480, an island bomb, by removing SS mixturess, etc.

In addition, from February 201 to December 2012, 2014, the Defendant manufactured a total of 2,700,474 of tear gas, island bombane, rubber coal, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities as stated in the annexed list of crimes.

B. Storage of explosives must be kept in the storage place with the permission of the competent authorities. Nevertheless, from July 2014 to February 2, 2015, the Defendant loaded 2,000 military waste tear gas (2,00) at the marina in the location of the Defendant Company without the permission of the competent authorities.

2. Defendant Company

Defendant 1, the representative of the Defendant, committed a violation as prescribed in paragraph (1) in connection with the Defendant’s business.

【2016 Highest 422】

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2, who aims at manufacturing and selling chemical coal in Kimhae-si ( Address 1 omitted), and Defendant 3 is the head of the development department of the above company.

A person who intends to blast or burn powders shall obtain permission for the use of powders from the chief of a police station having jurisdiction over the place using powders.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 conspired and blastd or burned explosives without permission of the chief of the competent police station as follows.

1. Defendants 1 and 3

On March 2012, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3, who received a request for a smoke of bomb for the suppression of demonstration from an overseas bomb, Defendant 1, who was in receipt of a request for a smoke of bomb for suppression of demonstration.

Accordingly, Defendant 3, without the permission of the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the time, opened a △△△△ Complex in the vicinity of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd., which was located in the △△△△△ Complex without the permission of the chief of the police station in charge of the police station. The defendant 3 opened a blasting by projecting one of the DaK-44(6B) which is

2. Defendant 1

On June 2014, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 to extinguish the tear gas in order to verify the performance of the DK-38S for the suppression of demonstration.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 connected the detonating fuses to the above DK-38S 5 head around the time of Kimhae-si ( Address 6 omitted) and burned it with fire.

3. Defendant Company

Defendant Company committed the act of violating the duty of Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant Company, and Defendant 3, the employee, at the same time and place as in Paragraph 1.

【2015 Highest 2960】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and the defendant company

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

1. A accusation, each field photograph, factory registration certificate, permit for the installation of a powder repository, etc., permit for powders manufacturing business, etc., a certificate of completion of report on transportation of explosives, a certificate of completion of report on export of tear gas, investigation report (explosion, etc. for fluoring black powder and shot powder compounding process), photograph, answer note, drawings of each permit, administrative disposition details, etc., details of the use of powders, etc.;

【2015 Highest 422】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

1. Photographs of product list, investigation report (the suspect's three-breadths and projected places), and photographs;

1. Summary of the assertion concerning the 2015 Highest 2960

A. The cotton drugs added by Defendant 1 as a tear gas propelling agents do not constitute explosives, and there is no provision on powders to be used as a tear gas propelling agents in the law, and Defendant 1 did not obtain permission on the kinds of powders to be used as a tear gas propelling agents at the time when permission was granted for the business of manufacturing powders, and thus, the manufacturing method does not change even if cotton drugs are added as a tearing agents.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the type or manufacturing method of powders has been modified since it was merely improving the structure and performance of tear gas, even though it was added to the tear gas powder to the tear gas, paper strawer, launch vehicle, etc. due to the demand of foreign bomb, but it was merely improving the structure and performance of tear gas.

B. The Defendant Company: (a) fully exports the tear gas manufactured; and (b) structure and performance standards for manufacturing permission under Article 4(1) of the former Act on Control of Firearms, Swords, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) do not apply to exported explosives pursuant to Article 3(4) of the former Act.

Therefore, the act of improving the structure or performance of Defendant 1 and Defendant Company by adding cotton drugs does not require permission for change.

C. The main text of Article 24(1) of the former Act provides that the storage of explosives shall be made at an explosives storage facility, and the proviso to the same Article provides that explosives below the quantity prescribed by Presidential Decree may be stored in a place other than an explosives storage facility. Moreover, Article 27 [Attachment Table 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26858, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that “other fire-processed articles” containing tear gas may be stored in a place other than an explosives storage facility up to 25 km.

However, since the total amount of black powder contained in 2,00 in the 2,000 black powder loaded in the factory Ma was 16km per unit (=8g x 2,000 per unit) so this can be stored in a place other than the powders storage place, Defendant 1 and Defendant Company cannot be deemed to have violated Article 24(1) of the former Act.

2. Relevant statutes;

Gu Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

(3) For the purpose of this Act, the term "explosives" means the following powders, explosives and fire-processed articles (referring to structures made using powders and explosives; hereinafter the same shall apply):

1. Powders:

(a) Black powder, or the powder whose principal ingredient is the nitrate;

3. Fire processed articles:

Each item omitted

Article 3 (Exclusion from Application)

(4) With respect to guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, and crossbows manufactured for the purpose of export, the structure and performance standards concerning the permission to manufacture by relevant sector under Article 4 (1) and (2) shall not apply.

Article 4 (Permission for Manufacturing Business)

(1) A person who intends to engage in the manufacturing business of guns and explosives (including remodeling and repairing of guns and transforming and processing business of explosives; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall obtain permission from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency for each factory, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. The same shall also apply where he/she intends to change the location, structure, facilities or equipment of a factory or to change

Article 24 (Storage of Powders)

(1) Powders shall be stored at an explosives storage facility under Article 25, and the storing method and quantity as determined by Presidential Decree, and other technical standards necessary for prevention of disasters shall be complied with: Provided, That this shall not apply to explosives less than the quantity determined by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Gu Act

Article 27 (Quantity of Powders to be Stored in Places Except for Powders Repositories)

The quantity of powders to be stored in the places except for powders repositories under the proviso of Article 24 (1) of the Act shall be listed in the annexed Table 6.

[Attachment 6]

Quantity of powders to be stored in a place other than powders repositories (related to Article 27)

본문내 포함된 표 저장 또는 사용자 등의 구분 2 ＼ 토목 그 밖의 사업자가 사업을 위하여 저장하는 경우(화약류저장소가 있는 자에 한함) 화약류의 종류 생략 그 밖의 사업인 경우 화약(㎏) 생략 2 그 밖의 화공약품(㎏) 생략 25

Enforcement Rule of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 58, Jan. 12, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the former Act").

Article 5 (Application for Permission to Manufacture Guns, Swords, Swords, Explosives, Gas Guns, Electronic percussion locks, and arbalests)

(1) A person who intends to obtain permission to engage in the business of manufacturing guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows (hereinafter referred to as "manufacturing business") or the business of processing explosives pursuant to the former part of Article 4 (1) or the former part of paragraph (2) of the Act shall submit an application for permission to engage in manufacturing business in attached Form 1 to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency or

(2) The application for permission referred to in paragraph (1) shall be accompanied by the following documents: Provided, That the documents referred to in subparagraph 6 shall be attached only where requested by the permitting agency:

4. Design drawings for guns, swords, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, and crossbows, and design drawings for explosives and gas sprayers, and structural specifications;

Article 7 (Application for Change of Manufacturing Facilities, etc.)

(1) A person who intends to obtain permission to change the location, structure, facilities or equipment of a factory, or permission to change the kinds or manufacturing methods of guns, swords, explosives, gas sprayers, electroshock weapons, or crossbows pursuant to the latter part of Article 4 (1) or (2) of the Act shall submit an application for permission to change manufacturing facilities in attached Form 3 to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency or the commissioner of a local police agency having jurisdiction over

(2) The application for permission referred to in paragraph (1) shall be accompanied by the following documents: Provided, That the documents referred to in subparagraph 3 shall be attached only where requested by the permitting agency:

4. Design drawings.

3. Determination

(a) Whether it is necessary to permit the modification of the manufacturing method with respect to the addition of cotton as a tear gas propelling agents and the addition of flashing agents, paper strawers, launchings, etc.;

According to Article 4(1) of the former Act, Article 5(1), Article 5(2)4, Article 7(1), and Article 7(2)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Act, the Defendant Company shall attach the ingredients and structural specifications of the tear gas to be manufactured at the time of obtaining permission for the business of manufacturing powders, and shall also attach design drawings when obtaining permission for the change of methods of manufacturing powders. As such, the ingredients or structure of the tear gas manufactured by the Defendant Company shall be subject to permission of the competent authorities, and if such change is subject to permission, permission for the change shall be obtained.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, unlike the composition and structural description of tear gas at the time of the initial permission, the defendant company arbitrarily changed its ingredients and structure such as sprinkling and sprinking agents, and removal of CS mixture agents as stated in Paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the criminal facts, unlike the composition and structural description of tear gas at the time of the initial permission. Since the tear gas produced by changing its ingredients or structure has increased its shooting range or powder combustion time compared to the tear gas produced as previously permitted, it is reasonable to view that the defendant company should obtain permission for change.

Therefore, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is rejected.

B. Whether it is unnecessary to obtain permission for modification pursuant to Article 3(4) of the former Act

Article 3(4) of the former Act provides that the structure and performance standards for manufacturing permission for respective kinds of guns, swords, explosives, etc. manufactured for export shall not be applied to guns, swords, explosives, etc. manufactured for export. This provision is a provision enacted for the purpose of facilitating export by satisfying the diverse demands of importing countries by allowing guns, etc. manufactured for export to be manufactured for export to be more power than those for the structure or performance standards of guns, etc. prescribed by the former Act.

Therefore, Article 3 (4) of the former Act only means that the permission for manufacturing or permission for alteration is obtained with respect to powders manufactured for export, and it does not subject to restrictions on the structure or performance standards stipulated in the former Act, etc., and it cannot be interpreted that the permission for alteration itself would be exempted from the permission for alteration. Therefore, the defense counsel’s assertion on this

C. Whether the proviso of Article 24(1) of the former Act is applied

According to Article 2(3)1(a), the proviso of Article 24(1) of the former Act, Article 27 [Attachment Table 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Act, powders are classified as powders, explosives, and fire-processed articles. Black powder falls under double powder, and where an operator holding an powders storage facility stores powders for business, he/she may store them in a place other than the powders storage facility for up to 2 km.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, Defendant Company: (a) purchased black powder in black powder and CSS mixturess from the Gun to extract and recycle them; (b) loaded 2,00 of the waste tear powder in the military that he purchased in the factory, not the powders storage place; and (c) loaded 2,00 of the waste tear powder in the military that he purchased in the factory, not the powders storage place; (d) there are black powder in the waste tear powder; and (e) the weight of the black powder is up to 16 km.

In light of these facts, black powder containing tear gas in the military disposal can be stored in a place other than the powders storage place by up to 2 km because it falls under the powder rather than the fire-processed goods, but Defendant 1 stored in a place other than the powders storage place by more than this, so the proviso of Article 24(1) of the former Act cannot be applied to the above acts by Defendant 1.

Therefore, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Each of the former Guns, Swords, Explosives, etc. Control Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Articles 70(1)2 and 4(1) of the same Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Article 72 Subparag. 1 and 24(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Articles 71 Subparag. 2 and 18(1) of the former Guns, Swords, Explosives, etc. Control Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines)

B. Defendant Company: Articles 76, 70(1)2, and 4(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Articles 76, 72 subparag. 1, and 24(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Articles 76, 71 subparag. 2, and the main sentence of Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Articles 76, 71 subparag. 2, and 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015)

C. Defendant 3: Article 71 Subparag. 2 and the main sentence of Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendant 1 and defendant company);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1, Defendant 3);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The fact that there is an identical previous violation of the fine to Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

[G] The defendants are subject to administrative disadvantages, such as suspension of business or suspension of qualification, due to the instant case; the defendants are against the defendants; the defendant company obtained permission following the change of the method of manufacturing powders after being prosecuted for the instant case; and the defendants made by changing the method of manufacturing powders without permission was entirely exported.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-do