2015Do16462 A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.)

(b) Intimidation;

(c) Injury;

(d) Damage to property;

(e) Violence;

A

Defendant

Attorney M (National Ship)

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No2243 Decided September 18, 2015

December 10, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted the said Defendant by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to intimidation to carry a deadly weapon (hereinafter “The Punishment of Violences Act”).

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the part concerning "a person who commits a crime under Articles 260 (1) and 283 (1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2014HunBa154, Sept. 24, 2015) applied by the court below after the judgment of the court below was rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2014HunBa154, Sept. 24, 2015). The above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act. due to the

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was no longer maintained since the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision of law was not a crime. Thus, the part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) among the judgment below should be reversed. Since the above part and the remaining crimes were sentenced to a single sentence against the defendant in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so

Justices Kim Jae-young

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Lee Dong-won