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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Punishment of Violences") shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years, or by a fine not exceeding three million won, for a person who carries, provides, or arranges any deadly weapons or other dangerous objects that are likely to be used for a crime prescribed in this Act without justifiable grounds;

“The above provision provides that a person who is likely to commit a crime of collective or habitual or special violence has been punished to maintain public peace and order from the time of the enactment of a law to the time of the enactment of a regulation for maintaining public order. The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (person suspected of committing a crime) is characterized as a preliminary crime of “crime prescribed by this Act” subject to the crime.

In full view of the general legal principles as to the interpretation of the penal provisions and the details of the amendment of the Punishment of Violence Act, the legislative purport and the language and text structure under Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences Act, and the nature and establishment requirements of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act, etc., it is reasonable to interpret “crimes prescribed in this Act” under Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences Act only means “crimes prescribed in the Punishment of Violences Act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7687, Sept. 21, 2017). Whether there is “consects to be used for crimes prescribed in this Act” under Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences Act is determined based on specific cases, depending on the type of the goods, the reason carrying the goods, the reason why the goods are carried, the circumstances leading to carrying the goods, and the circumstances before and after carrying the goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3860, Sept. 25, 2001).

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the “offender”) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated

3. However, based on the duly admitted evidence.