(b) Interference with business;

(c) Intrusion upon residence;

(d) Intimidation;

1. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

According to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the allegation that the lower court erred by mistake of facts does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the assertion of violation of law

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting him/her by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, on September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "a person who commits a crime under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with him/her constitutes a violation of the Constitution" (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa154, 398 (Merger), 2015HunBa3, 9, 2015HunBa14, 2015HunBa14, 2015HunGa14, 2015HunGa18, 205HunGa18, 20, 25 (Merger)) of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the part of the above legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, the court below's decision that applied the relevant provision of the Act to the facts charged cannot be held as it is because it did not apply to the crime in question.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) due to violence by carrying a deadly weapon should be reversed, and the above part should be sentenced to a single punishment by the court below in relation to concurrent crimes with the remaining parts found guilty. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won