A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The excessive one (No. 15) seized shall be forfeited from the accused.

The progress of the case and the scope of the trial

1. Progress of this case

A. On October 17, 2014, with respect to the instant case subject to review, the lower court’s final and conclusive judgment on May 8, 2014, as to the part (excluding the part on criminal facts No. 7, and the part on the grounds of innocence) that the Defendant destroyed and damaged by hand, the goods auxiliary to the storage store (excluding the part on acquittal) of the dangerous goods on May 8, 2014, the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) (hereinafter “former Punishment Act”).

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act shall apply, and the Act on Special Robbery and Punishment of Violences, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Exposure”).

The Defendant convicted all of the crimes of violation (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), violation of the law of breadth (a group, a deadly weapon, etc.), larceny, residential intrusion, and violation of the law of breadth (a crime of violation) and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as “determination subject to a retrial”). Although the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, all of the appeals were dismissed, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 13, 2015.

B. On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the part concerning “a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1)(Intimidation) and 366(damage, etc.) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object with a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” under Article 3(1) of the former Act, and thereby, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

(c)

On March 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a request for a retrial against the instant judgment subject to a retrial to the instant court. On January 25, 2017, the said court rendered a decision to review the instant judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that the instant judgment subject to a retrial had a record of re-examination as stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and thereafter the decision to commence the instant retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Scope of the trial;

(a) one sentence is not imposed, recognizing the conviction of several concurrent crimes in relation to each other;