beta
Text
The judgment below
The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.).
Reasons
1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are acknowledged.
A. On October 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) (b) and the Defendant appealed against the above judgment. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the court below on April 24, 2013, dismissed the public prosecution regarding the crime of assault among the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to the judgment subject to a retrial on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon as amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; and Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter the same).
Although Defendant filed a final appeal against the above judgment, the final appeal was withdrawn on May 6, 2013, and the final judgment for final judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.
(c)
On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on “a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1), 283(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object with a deadly weapon or other dangerous object is unconstitutional.” Accordingly, Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act on the ground that Article 3(1) of the same Act on “a person who commits a crime under Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional.”
(d)
The Defendant filed the instant petition for retrial on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality by the above Constitutional Court on the part of assault by carrying a deadly weapon.
However, the judgment subject to a retrial is in a concurrent crime between the part of assault with deadly weapons and the remaining guilty part of the judgment subject to a retrial and the part of the judgment subject to a retrial.
Since a single sentence has been pronounced, this Court dismissed the entire guilty part of the judgment subject to a retrial on March 20, 2017 (a part concerning the charge of assault).