The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, the judgment of the court below which applied the above provision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's "after leaving his head and the right side of his windows, who is a dangerous object, threatened the victim as if he saw the victim," and applied Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, the public prosecutor prosecuted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act constitutes "a person who commits a crime under Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object" in the above law constitutes "a person who commits a crime under Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object."

B. In Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Exposure Act”), the part concerning “a person who committed a crime under Article 283(1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with him/her was unconstitutional on September 24, 2015 that the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality with the content that “a person who committed a crime under Article 283(1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles is unconstitutional.”

According to this decision of unconstitutionality, the pertinent provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect, and where the law or provision of the law related to punishment has retroactively lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision shall be limited to the case that is not a crime

Therefore, the part that the court below found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged by applying the above provision cannot be maintained.

C. However, there is only a penal provision under Article 284 of the Criminal Act in regard to the above charged facts, and the purport of the decision of the Constitutional Court above is Article 3(1) of the breadth Act.