beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
(No. 1) with no seizure (Evidence No. 1);
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.
A. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant and the claimant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years for crimes, such as robbery, injury, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and appealed against the said judgment.
B. On November 7, 2014, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the crime No. 15 or No. 19 was added to the original facts charged, and then sentenced the defendant to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”), and the judgment became final and conclusive as it was by the waiver of the appeal by both parties.
C. However, on the grounds that Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the crime of larceny, was decided by the Constitutional Court on February 26, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for a retrial against the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that the Constitutional Court has decided on February 26, 2015. This court accepted this on July 23, 2015, and rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial, and thereafter, the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive
2. In accordance with the purport of the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality as above in the trial following the decision of ex officio, the prosecutor changed the name of the crime against the defendant into habitual larceny in light of the amended applicable provisions of law and the facts charged, the name of the crime according to the established rules on the name of the crime to be stated in the indictment and in the non-prosecution (No. 649 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). It is reasonable to regard the name of the crime as habitual larceny in light of the amended applicable provisions of law and the facts charged." Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among applicable provisions of law.