Where there is no change in the punishment even after the change in the law after the crime has been committed, the method of action shall be applied in accordance with Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act.

The lower court convicted the Defendant by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant by carrying dangerous articles on June 11, 2014, which led to intimidation. However, the lower court was amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; and was amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014;

c. The term “former Punishment of Violence Act” (hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences Act”).

(1) As there is no change in the sentence compared to Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court should have applied the corresponding provision of the former Punishment of Violences Act. However, the lower court did not have any effect on the conclusion of the judgment. However, the lower court rendered a ruling that “the part concerning a person who committed a crime under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous substance under Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act and the part concerning a person who committed a crime under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous substance under Article 3(1) of the same Act shall be deemed to have violated the Constitution, and thus, the part concerning the above legal provision shall retroactively become invalid under the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, which constitutes a case where the application of the Act or the Act has not been invalidated due to a judgment of unconstitutionality.”