The defendant asserts the following grounds for appeal:

In other words, the court below maintained the first instance court, which calculated the conversion amount of detention in a workhouse as in the judgment subject to review, contrary to the purport of the Constitutional Court's decision that Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the Criminal Act that Article 70 (2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) applies from a case where a public prosecution is instituted for the first time after the enforcement date of the same Act is unconstitutional, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding

However, the lower court, by applying Article 70 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) with respect to the Defendant’s criminal act committed prior to the enforcement of Article 70(2) of the said amended Criminal Act regarding detention at work site, determined the conversion amount of detention at work site, while maintaining the first instance court, which determined the same amount as the conversion amount of the judgment subject to a retrial within the scope of discretion for sentencing.

The above judgment below did not err by exceeding the purport of the above unconstitutional decision, or by exceeding the binding force of the decision of unconstitutionality as provided by Article 47(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the period of detention in the workhouse, it cannot be deemed that there was no error of law by misapprehending

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.