(b) Interference with business;

(c) Violence;

(d) Intimidation;

1. As to obstruction of business, violence and intimidation

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing and mental and physical disorder as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the court below's decision that the defendant violated the rules of evidence, violated the rules of evidence, or erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles is not

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion on the mental disorder on the grounds of its stated reasoning is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

2. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.), the lower court convicted him/her of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Punishment Punishment Act”), and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the part concerning "a person who commits a crime under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act" (hereinafter "the provision of this case") shall be unconstitutional."

If so, the provision of this case is unconstitutional, pursuant to Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Since the effect of the provision of this case was retroactively lost, this part of the facts charged which was prosecuted by applying the provision of this case constitutes a case that is not a crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was eventually unable to be maintained. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below 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 Jin-soo

The Chief Justice Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Gin-young