All of the first instance decisions are reversed.

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

Sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this paragraph.

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

A. The Defendant was sentenced to Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3 lower judgment in the Seoul Central District Court (each month of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment), respectively, and the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing. On April 14, 2014, the appellate court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and reversed each of the first instance judgment on the grounds of consolidation and sentenced each of two years and three months of imprisonment to the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant was on the part of the Defendant, but the final judgment became final and conclusive on June 20, 2014 by the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the 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 committed a crime under Article 283(1)(Intimidation) of the Criminal Act,” etc.

(c)

On January 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition for reexamination of this case. On February 16, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence reexamination on the grounds that there exist grounds for reexamination under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively deadly weapons, etc.) among the crimes subject to a retrial, and that the remainder of the crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below 1 and 2 which convicted all the facts charged against the defendant as to the misunderstanding of the facts is erroneous as follows.

(1) In the case of a crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, the defendant put the victim E at a convenience store with a drinking cans on the face of the police.

It is true that “the death, discarded, and seated,” and returned to the same.