(영문) 대법원 2015.8.19. 선고 2015도7852 판결

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all facts of the Defendant committed an act as stated in the instant facts charged are recognized. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the charge of bodily injury in the part of the charge of carrying a deadly weapon is difficult to accept for the following reasons, on the ground that the defendant carried a deadly weapon, and applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.

A. In light of the purpose of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the purport of Article 3(1) thereof, “a person who committed the crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles” under Article 3(1) of the same Act refers to the case where a person carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles under Article 3(1) of the same Act, or carries a person’s body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do914, Mar. 30, 2007).

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, "the point of injury to carry a lethal weapon is the date and time of the judgment of the court of first instance, while the Defendant was in a dispute with the victim, the head of the victim who was frightened by having frightening the victim's head several times, and the victim was unable to take two knife the victim's head, and the victim cannot take the two knife the victim's body and with a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif."

C. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the carrying of a deadly weapon under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a crime of injury by group, deadly weapon, etc.)

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) is reversed. Since this part of the judgment below and the remaining crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence shall be imposed. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of