beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
A. For the first instance of the instant crime, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the bill of amendment with respect to Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act to “Article 3(1), Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law, “Article 3(1), Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 366 of the Criminal Act,” respectively, was amended to “Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act,” among the instant crimes. This Court permitted this.
B. As to Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court applied Article 3(1) and Article 257(3) of the Criminal Act.
In this regard, Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which provides that the punishment of a person who commits an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object as a consequence of the promulgation and enforcement of the Act by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, was deleted, and Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act were deleted. This appears to be the amendment of the Act based on reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious. As such, the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. cannot be applied to the above facts, and the interpretation and application of the Act to the special injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, which was newly established through a more minor sentence, is inherent authority of the court, and the court may freely apply the Act by ex officio deliberation on the established facts without being bound by the prosecutor’s application of the written indictment.
Supreme Court Decision 71Do2099 delivered on February 22, 1972 and Supreme Court Decision 2000Do6113 delivered on February 23, 2001.