The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized one square meter (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to confiscation under one and half years of imprisonment and No. 1 of the seized evidence.

B. The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal.

(c)

The Defendant filed a final appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles. The court of final appeal reversed the entire judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) regarding “a person who committed a crime under Article 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles,” which rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) was retroactively invalidated pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the facts charged by applying the law, which became retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance reversed the entire judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds that it cannot be maintained.”

2. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the defendant suffers from the impairment of the division of labor, etc., the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the crime of this case ex officio, and at the trial of the relevant party, the prosecutor took the name of the crime of this case as "special damage" under Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.