beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.11.17. 선고 2015도13736 판결

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등협박),특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등),상해

Cases

2015Do13736 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation by collective groups, deadly weapons, etc.);

Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. (Intimidation)

Injury

Defendant

A

Appellant

Pacciny arsen

Defense Counsel

Attorney T (Korean Charter)

The judgment below

Gwangju High Court Decision 2015No286 decided August 27, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

November 17, 2015

Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”) and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the part concerning "a person who commits a crime under Articles 260 (1), 283 (1), and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object" in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act applied by the court below (Article 260 (1), 283 (1), and 366 of the Criminal Act) (Article 204, 154, 398, 2015, 3,9, 2015, 2015, 14, 2015, 18, 200, and 25 (combined) of the Punishment of Violences Act)" (Article 260 (1), 287 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act). Accordingly, the court below rendered a judgment that held that the above provision of the Act becomes retroactively null and void as a crime under Article 258 (2) of the Act, and thus, it constitutes a case subject to 98050.

Meanwhile, the lower court rendered a single sentence on the grounds that the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation with groups, deadly weapons, etc.) and the remaining guilty parts are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the lower judgment is reversed in its entirety. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, 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

Judges

Justices Park Sang-ok

Injury

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Cho Jong-hee