Supreme Court: Mere Possession of a Weapon Is Not Enough for Conviction; Intent to Commit Crime Must Be Proven

The Supreme Court has ruled that simply carrying a weapon after being assaulted by a neighbor does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts, etc. (the Violence Punishment Act).

According to legal circles on June 30, the Second Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Kwon Young-jun presiding) overturned the lower court's ruling that had sentenced a 65-year-old individual, identified as A, to one year in prison on charges including assault, property damage, trespassing, and violation of the Violence Punishment Act (as a person of concern), and remanded the case to the Jeonju District Court.

A was indicted for violating the Violence Punishment Act after carrying a kitchen knife around the neighborhood in July 2024, following an incident where A was assaulted by a neighbor, B, and sustained a head injury.

A was also charged with assaulting their sister-in-law in May of that year for refusing to provide financial assistance, and for breaking a jar lid belonging to her (property damage).

In the first and second trials, all charges against A were upheld, resulting in a one-year prison sentence.

B, who was indicted on charges of special injury, was sentenced to one year in prison suspended for two years; the sentence was finalized as B did not appeal.

In the final appeal filed by A, the Supreme Court determined that the charge of violating the Violence Punishment Act had not been proven.

Article 7 of the Violence Punishment Act (regarding persons of concern) stipulates that "any person who, without justifiable reason, carries, provides, or mediates a weapon or other dangerous object that is likely to be used for crimes prescribed by this Act shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 3 million won."

The Supreme Court explained, "In this provision, 'carrying' a dangerous object refers to possessing it with the intent to use it at a crime scene," adding, "The mere fact of possession cannot be presumed to mean there is a risk of it being used for crimes defined under the Violence Punishment Act."

The Supreme Court stated that the indictment failed to specify which crime under the Violence Punishment Act A intended to commit by carrying the kitchen knife, and that no such statement was made from the investigation stage through the second trial. Therefore, the court concluded, "It cannot be seen as proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant carried a dangerous object with the risk of it being used for crimes prescribed by the Violence Punishment Act."

Because the second trial had treated the violation of the Violence Punishment Act as a concurrent offense with the other guilty charges and issued a single sentence, the Supreme Court overturned the entire second-instance judgment and ordered a retrial.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.