All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case

A. The Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act is binding only on the law or legal provision which is subject to the decision of unconstitutionality, and it does not extend to other law or legal provisions unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9576 Decided April 14, 2011). The Constitutional Court has amended the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Act No. 10210 on March 31, 2010 in cases of 2014Hun-Ga16, 19, and 23 (Merger) Decided February 26, 2015.

B. The Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”)

Part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1), part concerning the attempted crimes under Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 329 of the same Act, and part concerning "acquisition" under Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act among Article 363 of the same Act are unconstitutional.

As “The decision of unconstitutionality” was rendered (hereinafter “the decision of unconstitutionality”), the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality does not extend to Article 5-4(6) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”).

Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the legal provision of this case violates the Constitution by stipulating an excessive punishment contrary to the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, or by losing balance in the criminal system and violating the principle of equality.

[See Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ba98, 206, May 31, 2012] The argument in the grounds of appeal that the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of this case extends to the legal provisions of this case or that the legal provisions of this case are unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

B. According to the records, the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are the defendants.

It can be seen that the appellate court only claimed unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal while appealed on the part of the defendant's case of the first instance judgment.

In this case, the argument that the court below erred in determining a separate punishment for the combined case is legitimate.