A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Residence)

B. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (registration of groups or deadly weapons)

Type of crime recognized, such as damage to water: Special damage to property)

(c) Interference with business;

(d) Damage and damage of property (a recognized crime: The punishment of violence, etc.);

Violation of the Act (Habitual Violation of Residence)

E. Name of crime recognized as violence: Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Violation (Habitual Violation of Residence)

A

Defendant

Attorney AO (National Ship)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015No400 Decided November 12, 2015

March 24, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the crime of assault and intrusion of residence, and damage to property.

Act on Punishment of Acts, etc. (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "Gu").

Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences Act, Articles 260(1), 319, and 366 of the Criminal Act

The court found the defendant guilty of the violation of the former Punishment of Violence Act (Habitual Intrusion) by comprehensively applying the provision.

Article 2 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act provides that "A person who habitually commits any of the following crimes shall be punished as follows:

§ 319 of the Criminal Act (influence upon residence, refusal to leave, etc.) provides that "a punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the classification of the

(i) listed violent crimes prescribed by the Criminal Code, such as the response, and defined the statutory penalty accordingly;

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, amended and enforced by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, is deleted.

On the other hand, the Criminal Code punishs habitual intrusion crimes.

There is no provision.

As such, former violence, which provides for aggravated elements for the crime of intrusion upon residence under the Criminal Act.

The purpose of deletion of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act is to eliminate the act of violence as a mark of aggravated constituent elements.

Even if the general risk of damp wall is considered, the circumstances and details of the individual crime;

Although the attitude and degree of infringement of legal interests are very diverse, the previous punishment is to be uniformly punished.

Since punishment regulations are unfair, it should be viewed as anti-sexual measures from the point of view, this should be viewed as criminal prosecution.

Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Transmission Act constitutes "when punishment is repealed due to the repeal or repeal of statutes after the crime (Supreme Court)."

See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18598 Decided February 18, 2016

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the former violence as to the use of violence, each taking of residence, and the damage of property.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty by applying the above provision of the Act on the Punishment of Acts

Therefore, the above crime and the rest of the defendant are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

Inasmuch as a single sentence is imposed in relation to the relationship, the remaining part of the crime is also reversed.

of this section.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded again.

The case is remanded to the lower court for determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The decision shall be rendered as above.

Justices Kim Jae-young

State Justice Lee Jae-soo

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee Dong-won