The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion without charge) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged (except for the portion of the crime committed by the Defendant from January 1, 2008 to March 5, 2013) and held the Defendant guilty, and held the Defendant guilty of imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for a fine of KRW 1.850,000,000,000, and applied Article 70(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014 and enforced on the same day), with the application of Article 70(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 3.7 million into one day shall be confined in the workhouse.

“Judgment of the court below” was pronounced.

B. On October 26, 2017, when the Constitutional Court sentenced a fine exceeding KRW 100,00,00,000, the following: (a) determined that Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Addenda provision of this case”) which stipulates the minimum limit of the period of detention in a workhouse, is unconstitutional since the first public prosecution is instituted after the enforcement date; (b) Article 70(2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the amended penal provision”) which stipulates the minimum limit of the period of detention in a workhouse is in violation of the principle of indivency under the Constitution, and thus, is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Decision 2015Hun-Ba239, 2016Hun-Ba177, Oct. 26, 2017).

According to the Constitutional Court's above decision of unconstitutionality, the supplementary provision of this case lost its effect pursuant to the main text of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that determined the period of detention in the workhouse by applying the revised detention clause to the criminal act committed by the defendant before the enforcement of the revised detention clause in the workhouse can not be maintained.

3. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.