The judgment below

Part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

seizure.

1. Scope of trial after remand;

A. The court below sentenced the defendant to two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in Articles 2 and 3 as stated in the judgment below, and sentenced him to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in Articles 2 and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and to two million won of fine for the crimes set forth in subparagraphs 2 and 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below before the return. The court below reversed the conviction part of the judgment of the court below as to the crimes set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below and sentenced him to a dismissal of appeal for the crimes set forth

Therefore, only the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand. The Supreme Court reversed the part on the crime No. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court below ex officio, and dismissed the appeal of the part on the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below. Since the part on the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below is separated and finalized, the scope of the judgment per party is limited to the crime No. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the

2. The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment of the original judgment (a year, six months of imprisonment and a death penalty No. 2) on the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant is too unfasible, and the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) to "special injury" and the corresponding applicable legal provision "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the judgment of the court below was changed to "after the transmission, the prosecutor applied for amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act." Since the judgment of the court below was changed to the judgment after the transmission, it cannot be maintained any further.

4. Accordingly, the court below's decision is without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.