2. Determination

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant was habitually punished by a dismissal judgment at the same court on December 18, 2014, on the grounds that he/she stolen or attempted to steals property on 14 occasions, and that he/she attempted to steal but attempted to do so, and the judgment subject to reexamination of this case became final and conclusive as is, pursuant to Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Articles 329, 342, and 331(1) of the Criminal Act. On January 17, 2014, the Gwangju District Court was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “the judgment subject to reexamination of this case”), and on the same day on December 18, 2014.

2) In Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010), the Constitutional Court decided that the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the part concerning the attempted crime are unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Decision 16,19,23 (Consolidation) decided Feb. 26, 2015). (3) Accordingly, the defendant filed a request for reexamination with the Gwangju District Court 2016 Inventory 27 inventory group. On December 7, 2016, the above court applied Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and Article 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act to the effect that Article 329 of the Criminal Act are unconstitutional and that Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 5(3) of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional.

Since a single sentence has been rendered, it is necessary to make a decision to commence a new trial on the whole judgment subject to the review of this case.

“For reasons, this case’s review is subject to review.