1. In the event that the evaluation of the past acts committed as a crime was changed according to the changes in the legal ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, and the punishment itself was unfair, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended in light of the reflect that the punishment was excessive, the new law shall be applied in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12930, Mar. 11, 2010; 2013Do4862, 2013; 101Do101, Jul. 11, 2013). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Punishment of Violences”), Article 2(1)4 of the Punishment of Violences Act, and Article 2(1)2) of the former Criminal Act (3).

B. Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences provides that “A person who habitually commits any of the following offenses shall be punished in accordance with the following classification,” and Article 2(2)2 of the same Act provides that “A person who habitually commits any of the following offenses shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years, by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years, by Article 283(1)(Intimidation) of the Criminal Act, and by Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Assault) of the same Act, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year:

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which was amended by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, was deleted.

As such, the deletion of Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violence Act, which provides for the respective aggravated constituent elements of Articles 324 (Coercive tion), 285, 283(1) (Habitual Intimidation), 264, and 260(1) (Habitual Assault) of the Criminal Act, was based on the fact that the previous penal provisions are excessive.