Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act shall apply to cases where punishment is significantly changed or where there is no change in punishment even after the change in the law after the crime occurred. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found Defendant guilty by applying Article 1(1)1 of the Criminal Act and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; Act No. 12896, Jan. 1, 2016; hereinafter “Act No. 12896, Dec. 1, 2006”); however, the lower court erred by misapprehending Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences Act and Article 283(1)1 of the Criminal Act, which were enforced at the time of the instant crime, and thereby did not affect the conclusion that Article 3(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences Act was amended by Act No. 18197, Mar. 19, 20, 20197.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court held on September 24, 2015 that "the part concerning a person who committed a crime under Article 283 (1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act (Act No. 7891), and Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act (Act No. 12896) concerning a person who committed a crime under Article 283 (1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles (hereinafter "the provision in this case") is in violation of the Constitution.

“The decision was pronounced.”

Thus, the provision of this case is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act as the above unconstitutional decision.