The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on political party defense, excessive defense, and legitimate acts.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

A. Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”) provides that “A person who habitually commits any of the following crimes shall be punished in accordance with the following classifications:

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) provides that “The Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) lists violent crimes prescribed by the Criminal Act, and stipulates the statutory penalty accordingly, but did not have any transitional provisions separately

The purpose of deletion of Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violence Act, which provides for an aggravated constituent element of violent crimes as prescribed by the Criminal Act, is to be deemed as an anti-sexual measure derived from the fact that the previous measure, which uniformly punishs aggravated punishment, is unfair, even though considering the general risk of the habition of an act of violence, which covers the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, as a sign of the aggravated constituent element, even though the circumstances leading up to the individual crime, specific form of act, and the degree of infringement of legal interests, are so diverse that the previous

Therefore, since Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act constitutes “when an act does not constitute a crime or a punishment is less severe than that of the former Act”, the new law should be applied in accordance with the said provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da3148, Mar. 11, 2010).