A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of habitual assault even though there is no habitual nature of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, habitual crimes refer to any mistake of a criminal offender, the tendency of a crime is not a nature that forms the essence of an act, but a nature that forms the character of an offender. As such, the existence of habituality under Article 264 of the Criminal Act shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, pasture, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime

(2) On May 11, 2006, the lower court and the first instance court duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant was investigated by an investigative agency from 16:15 to 16:35 on June 13, 2016, and was arrested as an offender in the act of assaulting the victim M without any specific reason, ② the Defendant was released on the grounds that he was investigated from around 00:30 on June 14, 201 to around 01:20 on the same day, and on the grounds that “the Defendant continued to continue to drive the police station in the future or in the future,” and on the grounds that he was released from the police station to the Defendant’s mobile phone (3:5).”