The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of each of the charges in accordance with Articles 3(1) and 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”), Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, or Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”), Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, with respect to the portion of intimidation of each victims by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles.

However, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to all the provisions of Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act 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 object with him/her, and Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences Act 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 object with him/her, and thus, rendered a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to all the parts concerning "a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1), and 366 of the Criminal Act by Article 260(1) of the same Act" [the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ba154, 398 (Joint), 2015Hun-Ga3, 14(Joint), 14) and 205(Joint) of the Act]

In a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision is not a crime, and thus, Supreme Court Decision 8 May 192 is rendered.