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

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be interpreted to apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair due to a change in the legal ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, or where the statutes were amended or amended in light of anti-discrimination that excessive punishment was excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do42, Mar. 10, 1987). On February 1, 1987, the lower court affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case that the Defendant habitually damaged another’s property, applying Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act.

B. Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act provides that “A person who habitually commits any of the following offenses shall be punished in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

Article 366 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who commits a crime under subparagraph 1 of the same Article shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year.

In that sense, the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc., which was amended by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, did not have any transitional provisions separately by deleting Article 2(1).

On the other hand, there is no provision punishing habitual property damage in the Criminal Code.

Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act, which provides an aggravated constituent element for the crime of destroying property under the Criminal Act, shall be deemed as an anti-sexual measure, even if the general risk of the habition of violence, as a mark of the aggravated constituent element, is considered to have been considered as being unfair, even though the circumstances leading up to the individual crime, the specific form of act, and the degree of infringement of legal interests, etc. are so diverse that the previous penal provision providing for the punishment uniformly aggravated, and thus, the punishment has been repealed by the amendment or repeal of the statutes after the crime.