2016Do832 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury);

Residential intrusion, interference with business;

A

Defendant

Attorney R (Korean National Assembly)

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No5708 Decided December 11, 2015

March 24, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)

Article 2 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Punishment of Violences Act") shall be construed as "Habitually following offenses:

Any person who commits a crime shall be punished in accordance with the following classification:

The Act of January 6, 2016 lists violent crimes and provides the statutory penalty accordingly.

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act amended and enforced by Act No. 13718 is deleted.

There was no transitional provision separately.

In such a case, there was a provision on aggravated elements for violent crimes under the Criminal Code.

The purpose of Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences Act is to delete Article 2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, which is an aggravated element

circumstances and details of each individual crime, even if the general risk of the habitation is considered;

Although the form of conduct and the degree of infringement of legal interests are very diverse, the relevant crime is uniformly committed.

Considering that the previous penal provision was unfair to punish aggravated punishment, it is an anti-sexual measure.

must be made.

Therefore, this crime is committed by the amendment of the law after the crime under Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Code.

Since a sentence does not constitute or is less than that of the old law, it constitutes a new law in accordance with the above provision.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12930 Decided March 11, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12930 Decided July 11, 2013

2013Do4862, 2013 Jeondo101).

2. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below held that the defendant habitually injured the victim.

For the purpose of Article 2 (1) 3 of the former Punishment of Violences Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, guilty

The judgment of the first instance court was affirmed.

However, according to the above legal principles, the above part of the facts charged is conducted pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act.

Since the provisions of the former Punishment of Violences Act cannot be applied to a corporation, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

It became impossible to do so.

Meanwhile, the court below held that the above part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged against the defendant are prior to Article 37.

Since a single sentence was imposed on the ground that the group's concurrent crimes are concurrent crimes, only the above part of the charges is charged.

In addition, the remainder of the facts charged should be reversed together.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

shall be determined as above.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok