beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
1. Progress of litigation;
A. On June 11, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months, and applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment Act”), Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).
B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed the lower judgment on the grounds of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and unfair sentencing (section 29 of the trial record) and stated the grounds for appeal on the date of the first trial prior to the remanding of the case (section 51 of the trial record) as unfair sentencing (section 51 of the trial record). On November 13, 2015, the lower court changed the “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” in the name of the instant crime subject to changes in indictment on November 13, 2015, into “special assault”, and changed the applicable legal provision of the said part into “Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act.”
The judgment of the court below was reversed ex officio and the defendant was sentenced to one year and six months.
(c)
The Defendant filed a final appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing, and unfair sentencing. On March 10, 2016, the final appeal court reversed the judgment prior to the remanding of the instant case without omitting judgment on the grounds that “The former Act was amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; and on the same day, Article 258-2 (Special Bodily Injury) newly established under the Criminal Act amended by Act No. 13719, which is the same as the instant provision was set at a lower statutory penalty, even if the former penal provisions were to be excessive, it should be deemed to be an anti-sexual measure that was derived from the fact that the former penal provisions were excessive. Therefore, pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, a new corporation, the punishment instead of the instant provision, should be applied.”