beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court applied Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act to the theft of cargo vehicles or light oil over four times [2014 high-ranking239] among the facts charged in the instant case.
However, on February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4 (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010)", Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 363 of the Criminal Act, among Article 363 (4) of the Criminal Act, are unconstitutional."
Since the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act in Article 5-4 (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is retroactively invalidated in accordance with the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act, the part concerning the facts charged prosecuted by applying this Article shall be deemed to constitute a case where it does not constitute a crime.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of larceny on the four occasions among the facts charged in the instant case. As such, the part concerning the facts charged in this part of the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.
The judgment below
Of these facts charged, the lower court rendered a single sentence by deeming that this part and the remaining facts charged constitute a single comprehensive crime or concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should be reversed in its entirety.
Therefore, 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 on the bench.