The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

A. Under Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act, in a case where the punishment is significantly changed even if there is a change in the law after the crime, or where there is no change in the punishment, the applicable law

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do19137, Mar. 24, 2016). B

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences Act”) which was enforced at the time of the joint withdrawal from the office, provides that a person who habitually commits a crime under Article 319 of the Criminal Act shall be punished, and Article 2(2) of the same Act provides that when two or more persons jointly commit a crime under any subparagraph of paragraph (1), a person who commits a crime under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be punished.

However, Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, amended by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, deleted, and Article 2(2)1 of the same Act provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 319 of the Criminal Act jointly with at least two persons shall be subject to aggravated punishment up to 1/2 of the penalty stipulated in each corresponding provision of the Criminal Act.

In the end, despite these amendments, the statutory penalty prescribed by the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act was not amended to those who jointly commit a crime under Article 319 (Noncompliance with Withdrawal) of the Criminal Act.

C. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant by applying Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences Act and Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act at the time of the act regarding the refusal to jointly withdraw from the charges of this case. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 1(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act.

2. Ground of appeal Nos. 5 through 5