1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant for six months of imprisonment, and applied Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

B. The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal doctrine, and misunderstanding of sentencing, and misunderstanding of the judgment of the lower court, and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on the ground that the judgment prior to the remand was not well-grounded.

(c)

The Defendant filed a final appeal against the judgment of the court of final appeal prior to remanding. The Supreme Court did not have any transitional provision while deleting Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act amended and enforced by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016. However, even when considering the general risk of the habition of an act of violence, which covers the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph as an element of aggravated constituent elements, it shall be deemed to be an anti-sexual measure taken from the fact that the previous measure that uniformly punished for aggravated punishment is unfair, even though the circumstances leading up to the individual crime, specific types of acts, and the degree of infringement of legal interest are very diverse. Thus, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act constitutes “when the act does not constitute a crime by the change of law after the crime, or the punishment is more severe than the previous law,” and therefore, the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, cannot be applied to the facts charged by the Defendant habitually committed a victim, reversed the judgment of this case, and remanded to the court.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment prosecutor's name of the instant crime was in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual assault) at the trial of the party, as "Habitual assault", and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act.