The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

excessive one (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

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

① On August 13, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to forfeiture of five years of imprisonment and one excessive seizure (Evidence No. 1). Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Act”), Article 257(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).

② On August 20, 2015, the Defendant lodged an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing. On October 27, 2015, the first instance court reversed the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant to the same punishment as the lower judgment on the grounds that the Defendant’s amendment to indictment (i.e., “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)” among the names of the crimes, was “special intimidation”; and (ii) “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law was changed into “Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively.

③ On October 29, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the lower court prior to remanding the case on the grounds of unlawful deliberation and violation of the constitutional principles and unfair sentencing. On March 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of final appeal deleted the instant provision upon amendment by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016. On the same day, Article 258-2 (Special Bodi Injury) newly established under the Criminal Act amended by Act No. 13719 of the same day prescribed the requirements for the composition of the instant provision, and the statutory penalty is lower than that of the previous penal provision. As such, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act ought to apply to the new legal entity, the punishment of which was minor pursuant to Article 1(2) of the same Act.

The judgment of the court before the remand was reversed, and the case was remanded to the court of the first instance.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.