The motion for retrial of this case is dismissed.

1. On December 6, 2013, this court rendered a judgment to punish the defendant for three years by applying Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act with respect to the criminal facts that “The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment not less than twice with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and subsequently stolen another’s property within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed.”

The judgment subject to a retrial was finalized on December 14, 2013.

2. Since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 5-4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Grounds for Request for Review, there are grounds for retrial under Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act is limited to the law or the provisions of the law that are subject to the decision of unconstitutionality, and the principle does not extend to other law or the provisions of the law,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9576 Decided April 14, 201). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) and the attempted crimes under Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) and Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act, among Article 363(4) of the Criminal Act, shall be unconstitutional” (hereinafter “instant decision of unconstitutionality”). As such, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “the part concerning “acquisition” under Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act, among Article 363(4) of the Criminal Act, shall be unconstitutional” (hereinafter “instant decision of unconstitutionality”), the effect of the instant decision of unconstitutionality shall not extend to Article 5-4(6) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”).

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2602, May 14, 2015). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion premised on the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality on this case’s legal provisions cannot be accepted.