The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. The lower court convicted 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); Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 366 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below based on the legal provision retroactively null and void is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an additional collection of three years and 4.180,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the trial of the party, the Prosecutor: “A special property damage” in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, etc. to which a group of deadly weapons is listed) (Article 3(1), 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act provides that “Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act” shall be “Article 369(1), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act”; Article 3(1), Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “Special Violence” shall be deemed to be “a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group of deadly weapons, etc.); Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “The court shall grant permission to amend the contents of the Act by modifying the provisions of Article 260(1)1 of the Criminal Act and Article 260(1)6 of the Criminal Act.”

Since the above crimes and the other crimes in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be sentenced, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal of authority, and it is without examining the misapprehension of the legal principles of the defendant and unfair sentencing.