Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, for a short of one year and six months, and for defendant B, for a maximum of two years and six months.

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014) provides that “Any person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or any other dangerous thing with him/her and commits a crime under Articles 260(1) (Intimidation), 283(1) (Intimidation), and 366 of the Criminal Act shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of prosecutor (as to Defendant A and B) committed a crime under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (amended by Act No. 12896, Sep. 24, 2015).”

Sentencing (In respect of the Defendants), each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

Judgment

Defendant

Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against the above Defendants A and B, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against the said Defendants by the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor changed the term “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.)” from among the names of the crimes in the case in question to “special injury”, “Articles 3(1), 2(1)3, and 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” in the applicable law to “Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and [Article 257(2) of the Criminal Act shall be changed to “Article 258-2(1) and 258 of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, etc.) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, etc.) to “special intimidation,” and “Article 2(1) of the same Act shall be deleted.”