All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 21(5) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (hereinafter “Guns Control Act”) provides that “The manufacturer and seller of guns, swords, injectors, electronic percussion locks and arbalests, and a person who has obtained permission for export or import or who has obtained permission for possession shall not lend them to others, and shall not lend them from others, respectively.”

In light of the purport and contents of the above provision and the system of the entire provision of the Guns Control Act, the phrase “loan” here means an act of having a person who is not allowed to possess the pertinent Guns, Guns, Swords, Guns, Swords, Guns, etc. planed return

In addition, the term "bearing" in the "Guns, etc. Control Act" means having a real control relationship with respect to the keeping of objects prescribed in the above Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1304 delivered on August 20, 199). 2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Guns Control Act is that “Defendant A has borrowed one air gun from Defendant B, and Defendant B has lent it to Defendant A.”

In addition, the first instance court maintained by the court below recognized the fact that the defendant A had only 1 air gun created from the defendant B and 3 lots of guns at the restaurant parking lot operated by the defendant A.

Examining the above facts in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, as long as Defendant A received air guns from Defendant B from Defendant B and shooting, it should be deemed that Defendant A had a real control over them and possessed them.

Therefore, the Defendants’ act constitutes a short time and borrowing of guns. As the Defendants asserted, Defendant A’s act was dried for test shooting before purchasing air guns from Defendant B by gun merchants.