The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

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

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three months for property damage at the District Court on January 28, 2014, but the suspended sentence was revoked, and the suspended sentence was completed on September 15, 2014 at the Gi-Government Prison on September 15, 2014.

Therefore, the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime committed within three years after the execution of punishment was completed, and the court below erred in omitting the aggravated punishment in accordance with Article 35 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime of this case committed during the period of repeated crime, and thus, the court below cannot maintain any further judgment.

B. The lower court applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime.

In this regard, Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which provides that the punishment of a person who commits an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object as a consequence of the promulgation and enforcement of the Act by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, was deleted, and Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act were deleted. This appears to be the amendment of the Act based on reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious. Thus, the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. cannot be applied to the above facts charged, and the interpretation and application of the Act to the special injury under Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act, which was newly established through a more minor sentence, is the inherent authority of the court, and the court, in the case of legal application, other than the facts charged, has applied the Act to the prosecutor’s indictment.