A. The judgment subject to a retrial (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da7366, Nov. 15, 2009) became final and conclusive by this court, which applied Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act to the criminal facts that the defendant committed in total eight times from January 13, 2005 to May 7, 2006, and the criminal facts that the defendant injured his spouse on November 10, 2003 and on November 15, 2006, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of one year on January 15, 2009, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2009.

B. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 241 of the Criminal Act violates the Constitution.

(2011Hun-Ga31, etc.)

On March 17, 2015, according to Article 47(3) and (4) of the Constitutional Court Act, the lower court decided to commence a retrial on April 16, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, the lower court sentenced the Defendant on May 29, 2015, sentenced the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that penal provisions have lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality, and sentenced a fine of KRW 4 million to the charges of bodily injury.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, which was sentenced to a judgment subject to a retrial violating the res judicata doctrine, includes the sentence of injury in the sentence of two years of suspended sentence.

However, the Defendant terminated the execution of a sentence on the crime of bodily injury as the suspended period of the judgment subject to a retrial, which became final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, it is against the principle of res judicata under the Constitution that the court below again imposed a fine on the crime of injury and executed a sentence.

B. It cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower judgment is disadvantageous in comparison with the punishment of a suspended sentence of two years and a fine prescribed by the lower judgment for one year prescribed in the judgment subject to a retrial, which merely violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change.

However, the defendant has already been suspended.