1. Progress of this case

A. On October 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years on the grounds that Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”) and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act were applied to the crime, etc. in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) at the Gwangju District Court in Gwangju District Court.

(Re-deliberation Decision) The Defendant appealed with the Gwangju District Court 2013No2299, but was sentenced to the dismissal of an appeal on December 11, 2013. Furthermore, the Defendant appealed with the Supreme Court 2014Do282, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 13, 2014 upon the dismissal of an appeal on February 13, 2014.

B. On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “any person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1), and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying with him/her a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” in Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution, and thus, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

C. The Defendant filed the instant petition for retrial on the ground that the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality on the part of intimidation to carry dangerous articles in the judgment subject to retrial was rendered.

However, the judgment subject to a retrial rendered a single sentence on December 9, 2019, on the following grounds: (a) the fact that there is a danger for a cause for a retrial and the fact that the remaining conviction are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; and (b) the court rendered a ruling of commencing a retrial on the entire guilty part of the judgment subject to

2. One sentence recognized as guilty of several criminal facts in the relationship of concurrent crimes within the scope of judgment in this Court.