The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act with regard to the destruction of and damage to dangerous articles among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, on September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “a person who commits a crime under Article 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with him/her,” in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ba154, 398 (Merger), 2015Hun-Ga3, 9, 2015Hun-Ga3, 2015Hun-Ga14, 2015 (Merger), 2015Hun-Ga14, 20, 205Hun-Ga18, 205 (Merger), 205Hun-Ga18, 25 (Consolidated)) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) main sentence of the Constitutional Court Act.

As such, in a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the facts charged charged by applying the pertinent legal provision are not a crime, and thus the judgment of the court below which applied the above legal provision to the damage of property carrying dangerous goods among the facts charged in this case cannot be maintained as it is.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to the destruction of dangerous goods and the damage of property carrying dangerous goods (collective weapons, etc.) should be reversed. Since the above part is concurrent crimes with the remaining convicted parts, the court below should pronounce a single punishment. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.