The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. On October 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months for committing a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of group, deadly weapon, etc.) in the Busan District Court 2013 Gohap 413, 418 (Joint), 427 (Joint), or 487 (Joint).

On the other hand, the defendant appealed on the ground that the punishment sentenced by the court below is too excessive and unfair.

B. On April 3, 2014, the appellate court reversed the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and sentenced the defendant to a one-year imprisonment (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). While the defendant was on the part of the court below, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the appeal on May 27, 2014.

(c)

On November 4, 2015, the Defendant requested the instant retrial. On February 4, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence the retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

After that, there was no legitimate filing of appeal within the appeal period, and the decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the revision of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) to the "special assault" among the names of the crimes against the defendant, and the "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 1, and Article 260 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the applicable law to the "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, and the court changed the subject of the trial following the permission. The above crime was concurrent crimes between the remaining crimes of the defendant and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is the judgment.