[1] The meaning of "swords" under Article 2 (2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act and the purport of the expression "swords" under Article 4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act do not appear on the nesh and top day

[2] The case holding that swords similar to swords, which are disposed of knife and knifely with the knife part of the knife part, do not constitute swords under Article 2 (2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, Article 4 (1), (2) [Attachment 1], (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4 (3) of the same Act, mean a weapon that is convenient on the bend day only on the bend day, and since the inspection means a weapon that is convenient on the bend day, the character of a swords is bendort, and thus, a swords under Article 2 (2) of the same Act are in the form of Article 4 (2) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in its size and form, and are in the nature of a swords that can be used as a lethal weapon. In light of the above, the expression "bendor or a hazardous substance that is in danger of being used as a lethal weapon" is excluded from the expression "bendor" or "bendor" under Article 4 (3) of the same Enforcement Decree.

[2] The case holding that swords similar to knife, which are disposed of on the knife part of the knife part and on the knife part of the knife part, do not constitute swords under Article 2 (2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act since knife or knife cannot be used as lethal weapons

[1] Article 2(2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, Article 4(1), (2) [Attachment 1], and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act / [2] Article 2(2) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, Article 4(2) [Attachment 1] and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No1462 delivered on September 28, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 2 (2) of the Guns, Swords, Explosives Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "swords" shall be defined as prescribed by Presidential Decree from among those whose blades are used as lethal weapons in light of their nature, and whose blades are less than 15§¯, even though it is obvious that there is a danger of being used as lethal weapons even though blades are less than 15§¯, and that they are clearly in danger of being used as lethal weapons. In relation to Article 4 (1) and (2) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 2 (2) of the Act provides that the kinds of swords defined in Article 2 (2) of the Act are 15§¯ or more in knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife or knife (Article 4 (1) 1 through 7 of the Enforcement Decree), and that their knife is not less than 15§¯ or more than 6 k.

In full view of the above provisions and the character of "swords", under Article 2 (2) of the Act, swords have the form under Article 4 (2) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and are in danger of being used as lethal weapons, and the expression "belle or knick" in Article 4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act means that "belle or knick" cannot be used as lethal weapons. In such a case, the expression "bee or bee" means that "bee" cannot be used as lethal weapons, and thus, it means that swords are not in danger of being used as lethal weapons and are excluded from swords under Article 2 (2) of the Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the swords in this case did not constitute swords prescribed in Article 2 (2) of the Act because they did not pose a risk of being used as lethal weapons, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to swords prescribed in Article 2 (2) of the Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)