The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. The Defendant and the applicant for reexamination (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to ten months from the Southern Branch of Gwangju District Court on October 1, 2014, and the Defendant appealed for the following reasons: (a) on the grounds of mental disorder and unfair sentencing; and (b) on December 17, 2014, the Prosecutor appealed for each reason of unfair sentencing; and (c) on December 17, 2014, the appellate court accepted the Defendant’s unfair assertion of sentencing, reversed the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment.

On February 13, 2015, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive due to the dismissal of the final appeal.

B. On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the part of Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); “A person who carried a deadly weapon or other dangerous object and commits a crime under Articles 260(1) (Assault), 283(1) (Intimidation) and 366 of the Criminal Act.”

(c)

On June 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition for the instant retrial. On August 19, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the grounds that there exist grounds for a retrial under Article 47(4) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Act for a crime of violation of the Act on Violence, Etc. (damage, etc. to Property Registered as a Collective Deadly Weapons) among the crimes subject to a retrial.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. (1) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A prosecutor shall, after making a decision to commence a new trial, be either of the facts charged in the instant case.