폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(단체등의구성ㆍ활동)등
We reverse the judgment of the court below.
As to the crimes of Articles 1, 2, 5 and 8 in the judgment of the court below against the defendant.
1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized:
A. The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year pursuant to Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, with respect to the crime under Articles 3(1), 3(1), 3(4), 9, 10 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, with respect to the crime under Articles 3(1), 2(1), 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, with respect to the judgment subject to a retrial for two years (Article 3(1), 2(1), 1, and 30 of the former Punishment of Violences Act.
B. After that, upon the Defendant’s request for a new trial, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on June 23, 2017, and such decision became final and conclusive as is.
2. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment of the lower court is too large and unfair.
3. In the appellate court’s ex officio determination, the prosecutor: “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)” in the name of the Defendant as “special assault”; “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)” as “special intimidation”; “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law, “Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act; “Articles 3(1)1 and 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and “Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act,” and applied for permission by the court.”
As the subject of the instant judgment was changed accordingly, the lower judgment became unable to be maintained as it is.
4. The lower court’s conclusion is ex officio.