The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

1,000,000,000 Addives No. 1,00.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the violation of Articles 3(1) and 2(1)2 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences Punishment Act”), and Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act, on the part that the Defendant carried a dangerous object and detained the victim.

In this regard, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which was amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, which was following the pronouncement of the lower judgment, deleted Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act. This is a anti-sexual measure to prevent punishment under such penal provision, since Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violence Act provides for the same elements as that of Articles 278 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act and only increases the statutory penalty and is unconstitutional (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do19875, Mar. 24, 2016). Accordingly, the lower court’s application of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as it cannot be subject to aggravated punishment under Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, becomes no longer possible.

B. As the stolen goods returned to the victim, the reason for return to the victim is clear must be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Accordingly, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the examination and seizure warrant (Article 4 of the evidence No. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act) by the investigative agency constituted the stolen goods, which are the damaged goods of the robbery of this case, and the reason for return to the victim is apparent. Thus, the court below held that the return to the victim is ordered by judgment.