1. Reasons for enacting the penal provisions of Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act or subparagraph 4 of Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Pursuant to the change of the legal ideology, the previous punishment itself was unfair or excessive punishment was excessive.

It shall be interpreted that the statute shall apply in cases where the statute is amended or amended in reflective consideration that the statute was made (or

Supreme Court Decision 86Do42 delivered on March 10, 1987, etc.

2. A. The lower court: The facts charged in this case where the Defendant habitually destroyed another person’s property

The former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)

Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Punishment of Violences Act") and Article 366 of the Criminal Act

The Court affirmed the first instance judgment which found guilty.

(b) A person who habitually commits any of the following crimes under Article 2 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act:

다음의 구분에 따라 처빌한다."라고 규정하면서 제1호에서 형빕 제3662, 등의 죄를 범

The Act on January 6, 2016 provides that one person shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of at least one year.

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act amended and enforced by Act No. 13718 is deleted.

The Criminal Code does not have any transitional provision separately. On the other hand, the Criminal Code punishs the crime of habitual destruction and damage.

There is no set.

As such, an aggravated act of violence under the Criminal Code provides for an aggravated element of a crime of causing property damage.

The purpose of deletion of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences is to eliminate the act of violence as a mark of aggravated constituent elements.

Even if the general risk of the wall is considered, the circumstances and detailed attitude of the individual crime;

Although the amount and the degree of infringement of legal interests are very diverse, the previous punishment is to be uniformly aggravated.

Since punishment regulations are unfair, it should be viewed as anti-sexual measures from the point of view, this should be viewed as criminal prosecution.

Article 326 (4) of the Transmission Act is applicable to "when punishment is repealed due to the repeal or repeal of the law after the crime is committed."

Thus, the facts charged of this case is premised on the application of the former Punishment of Violences Act.

The judgment of the court below no longer can no longer be maintained.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Opinions of all participating Justices on the bench shall be remanded to the lower court for a trial and determination.

(2) It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Kim Jae-han

Note 3rd Justice Kim Jong-il