1. In cases where the evaluation of acts committed as a crime in the past has changed depending on the changes in the legal ideology which served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, and such evaluation has been recognized and punished as a crime itself, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended in light of reflective results that excessive punishment has been excessive, the new law shall be applied in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”), and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.

(b) A person who commits a crime under any of the subparagraphs of Article 2 (1) by force, or showing a power under the pretending to an organization or group, under Article 3 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act, or who commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with him/her, shall be punished in accordance with any of the subparagraphs of Article 2 (1).

"A person who habitually commits any of the following offenses" in Article 2 (1) shall be punished in accordance with the following classifications:

Article 257(1)(Bodily Injury) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(2)(Bodily Injury) of the Criminal Act provide that “A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years.”

Therefore, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which was enforced by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, has been deleted, and Article 258-2 (Special Bodily Injury) of the Criminal Act, which was enforced by Act No. 13719 on the same day, has been newly established and Article 258-1 (1) of the same Act has committed a crime under Article 257(1) or (2) of the Act.