beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
1. The grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment below
In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below's determination that the court below convicted the victim of the injury by carrying dangerous articles among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle
2. The decision shall be made ex officio;
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences Act”) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act.
However, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the part of Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act concerning "a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1), and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object with him/her (the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on September 24, 2015, 2014Hun-Ba154, 398 (Joint), 2015Hun-Ba3, 9, 21 (Joint), 2015Hun-Ga14 (Joint), 2015Hun-Ga14 (Joint), 2015Hun-Ga18, 20, and 25 (Joint)) of the former Punishment of Violences Act, which was applied by the court below (the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality, which retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Act
In a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007) and thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged was no longer maintained.
On the other hand.