The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

excessive one (No. 15) seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the law at the time of judgment on retrial should apply to a defendant's crime by misunderstanding the legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by applying Article 3 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which was deleted on certain criminal facts [the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)] of the judgment of the court below.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. A. A prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment 1) changed the term “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” to “special attack”; “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” to “special confinement”; and “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 350 of the Criminal Act to “Article 350-2 and Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act”; Article 350 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)2 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 27(1)7 of the Criminal Act to “Application for Amendment to the Bill of Indictment, etc.” in the Criminal Act.

2) This court permitted the prosecutor's application for changes in the indictment and changed the subject matter of the judgment, and the remaining convictions as stated in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety (this part of the judgment below is not judged separately since changes in indictment was made reflecting the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles). (B) In the case where new trial has commenced, law on criminal facts without any ground for retrial.