살인등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.
One month (No. 1) for a shower seized shall be confiscated.
Case progress and scope of this Court's inquiry
1. Case progress
A. On July 9, 2010, the Changwon District Court rendered a judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to a retrial”) against the Defendant and the requester for a custody and custody examination (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) on the grounds of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, etc. of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.). The judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and became final and conclusive by combining the judgment subject to a retrial with 12 years (hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment”).
B. The part on September 24, 2015 regarding “a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1)(Assault), 283(1)(Intimidation), and 366(damage, etc.) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” in Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act is in violation of the Constitution.
“The Constitutional Court (Supreme Court Decision 2014HunBa154, 398, 2015HunBa3, 9, 14, 18, 18, 2015HunBa3, 9, 18, 20, 21, 25 (Joint)) decided September 24, 2015).
On September 15, 2017, the Defendant filed a request for a retrial against a judgment subject to a retrial with this court. On September 15, 2017, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the ground that there was a cause of reexamination as stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and thereafter the decision to
2. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. In the final and conclusive judgment that found one of the several concurrent crimes guilty and sentenced one of them guilty, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting the crime, the first sentence is against the judgment on which one sentence is pronounced, and thus, the decision to commence retrial is bound to be rendered on the whole judgment.
However, the nature of the review system, which is an emergency remedy, is essential.