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

[2] The case holding that in case where the line of the violent organization in the camping without a person's identity in the new wall mar, with the length of 150cm, the diameter of 7cm and the length of 100cm and the length of 100cm and the macker's length of 4cm and 5cm each with 70cm and macker's part per head, the mack pipe and each item constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[1] The risk of "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined based on whether the other party or the third party could feel the danger of murder immediately when using the goods in light of social norms in a specific case.

[2] The case holding that in case where the line of the violent organization was cut down in the camping without a person's identity in the new wall, and the line of the violent organization was cut down by 150cm in length, 7cm in diameter, 100cm in length, 100cm in length, 4cm in length and 5cm in length, and 70cm in length per person per 1 mbucks, the hack pipe and each item constitute "hazardous goods" as stipulated in 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 81Do1046 delivered on July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 1423), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1570 delivered on December 22, 1989 (Gong1990, 424) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2527 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 816), Supreme Court Decision 96Do3411 delivered on February 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1021), Supreme Court Decision 97Do597 delivered on May 30, 197 (Gong197Ha, 1961), Supreme Court Decision 97Do31971 delivered on February 27, 198 (Gong197Ha, 1961)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-hoon

Jeju District Court Decision 9No150 delivered on August 18, 1999

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

1. The defendant's appeal shall be examined;

In this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed, the argument that punishment is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The prosecutor's appeal shall be examined;

A. On October 4, 1998, the lower court determined that: (a) Nonindicted 2 (year 16), Nonindicted 3 (year 17), and Nonindicted 4 (year 16), etc., who were in common with Nonindicted Party 1 as members of the victims of the violence organization, did not use the victim’s secret string at least 70 weeks; (b) the victim’s remaining string at least 70 marbs and 70 margs were unlikely to use the victim’s secret strings and 5 (year 17) with the victim’s secret strings; (c) the victim’s remaining strings and 70 margs were unlikely to use the victim’s secret strings and 70 margs, and thus, determined that the victim’s remaining strings and margs were not likely to have been able to use the victim’s secret strings in light of social norms and other relevant circumstances.

B. In a specific case where the risk of "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is determined based on whether the other party or the third party could feel the risk of death immediately when using the goods in light of social norms is determined as determined by the court below.

However, in this case, the hack pipe and each item used by the defendant have the same size as recognized by the court below, and if the defendant committed assault against the victims at least 70 times per victim, as recognized by the court below, the degree of assaulting the victims was sufficient to make the victims a hole up at the price, such crime was committed against the follow-up officers of the same violent organization that is difficult to oppose in the field without human resources at the new wall 2, and the victims' age also remains, considering the above circumstances acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to view that the hack pipe and each item do not constitute a dangerous object as prescribed in the above provisions of the law, since there is no risk of killing because the other party or a third party feel the victim, it is difficult to view that the hack pipe and each item do not constitute a dangerous object under the above law.

Nevertheless, a decision made by the Committee differently is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to dangerous goods under the above Article, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)