1. The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

1. The progress of the case (limited to the defendant among the judgment subject to a retrial)

A. On May 8, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation) among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for two years by recognizing the remainder of the facts charged, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.).

B. On August 12, 2015, both the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, and this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal regarding the portion of innocence (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”) by setting forth that the Defendant’s conviction among the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the Defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months.

(c)

Accordingly, even though only Defendant was dismissed, the final appeal was withdrawn, and on August 20, 2015, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

(d)

On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “The part concerning a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles under Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014) shall be unconstitutional.”

E. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a request for a retrial regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial. On March 8, 2016, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the ground that the part against the Defendant among the instant judgment subject to a retrial was subject to a re-examination under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as it is with the intention to file an appeal.

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Re-adjudication is an emergency remedy procedure recognized only for the benefit of the defendant against the final judgment of conviction (Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, the judgment of innocence cannot be subject to re-adjudication. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the defendant, the judgment of innocence was rendered at the lower court.