1. In a case where the evaluation of the past acts committed as a crime has changed depending on the changes in the legal ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, and the punishment itself was recognized and punished as a crime is unfair, or where the statutes were amended or amended in light of anti-discrimination that excessive punishment was excessive, the new law shall be applied in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12930, Mar. 11, 2010; 2013Do4862, 2013; 2013Do101, Jul. 11, 2013). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying Article 1(2) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment Act”) and Article 15(1)30(1) of the former Punishment Act.

(b) The person who habitually commits any of the following crimes shall be punished in accordance with Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act:

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, which was amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, provides that “A person who commits a crime under subparagraph 3 of the same Article shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years, but the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., which was enforced by Act No. 13718, did not have any transitional provision separately by deleting Article 2(1).

Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act, which provides for an aggravated constituent element of the crime of extortion under the Criminal Act, shall be deemed to be an anti-sexual measure, since the previous penal provision that uniformly punishs a person subject to aggravated punishment is unfair, even though the general risk of the habition of violence, as a sign of the aggravated constituent element, is so diverse that the circumstances leading up to the individual crime, the specific form of act, and the degree of infringement of legal interests, etc. are so diverse that the punishment is unfair. Thus, Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.