A. Article 2(3)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act cannot be applied to the instant crime by misunderstanding the legal principles (hereinafter “Punishment of Violences”).

In doing so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles by applying this.

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

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 2(3) of the Punishment of Violences Act provides that a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment not less than twice for a violation of this Act (including the habitual offenders, special crimes, and habitual special crimes of each applicable provision of the Criminal Act and each applicable provision of the same Act, non-criminals of each applicable provision, non-criminals of special crimes, non-criminals of special crimes, and non-criminals of habitual special crimes) shall be punished as a repeated offender for again committing any of the crimes under any of the subparagraphs of Article 2(2), as follows:

“.......”

As to the phrase “a person who again commits the crimes provided for in each subparagraph of Article 2(2)” in the above provision, the meaning of the provision cannot be deemed to be limited to the case where two or more persons jointly commit the crime under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences Act. It shall be deemed that the case where a person commits the crime under the Criminal Act as provided in each subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences Act.

Although interpreting the above provisions, it can be balanced with punishing a person who commits a crime under the Criminal Act as provided in Article 3 (4) of the Punishment of Violences Act.

B. The Defendant has been sentenced three times to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence Act, and each of the imprisonment with prison labor for special intimidation under the Criminal Act, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, Article 2 (2) 3 of the Punishment of Violence Act (Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act) has been committed during the period of repeated crime.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the defendant was punished by applying Article 2 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Violences Act.

. The defendant-appellant.