[1] The relation to the number of crimes where the act of destroying or threatening property was committed in the course of obstruction of business

[2] Whether Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. that provides for the destruction of and damage to a deadly weapon and portable property violates the Constitution that provides that the statutory penalty shall be imposed by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year (negative)

[1] Articles 37, 283, 314, and 366 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 2(1)1 and 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 12 and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

[2] Supreme Court Order 2008Hu202, 2007Do6188 dated June 26, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1095)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Sung-sung et al.

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009No493 Decided September 15, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

The court below recognized facts based on its adopted evidence and determined that the defendant committed a crime of damage to the property of this case, interference with business, or intimidation in collusion with the non-indicted, etc. Upon examining records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to joint principal offenders, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal

Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the act of destroying or damaging property, which was conducted in the course of interference with business, is so minor as not to be considered separately for the crime of interference with business. The court below is just in holding that the defendant's act of destroying or threatening the property in this case is in a substantive concurrent relationship with the crime of interference with business, and the argument in the grounds of appeal that the act is not subject to punishment as the so-called "act of causing inbru

In addition, the issue of how to punish a certain crime, i.e., the selection of the type and scope of statutory penalty, requires a wide range of legislative discretion, and it shall not be readily concluded that it violates the Constitution. Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provide that a person who committed a crime of destroying and damaging property by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year, is subject to such freedom of legislative formation. It cannot be easily concluded that the provision contravenes the constitutional ideology, such as the principle of excessive prohibition or proportionality, or the principle of clarity of penal laws. This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)