A. The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, was convicted of habitual injury, and the crime of this case was committed before the above final judgment, and is a violent crime by the realization of the same habit, and thus res judicata of the above final judgment also extends to this case.

B. Each of the crimes in this case committed by the defendant is under the influence of alcohol and commits it in a state of mental disability.

C. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The final judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles constitutes a case where the Defendant was sentenced not less than twice to imprisonment by violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”) and again punished as a repeated offense by committing an offense under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of the same Act, and Article 2(3) of the Punishment of Violences Act applies. Article 2(3) of the Punishment of Violences Act is not only a provision on aggravated punishment for a repeated offense under the Punishment of Violences Act, but also a provision on habitual punishment, and it is evident that the Defendant is not prosecuted for habitual crimes even based on the criminal facts of the final judgment.

[However, even though the Punishment of Violences Act was amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, all of the provisions related to habitual offenders were deleted, the name of the crime is only stated as "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) and Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Violence) (Habitual Violence)" since it is not yet reflected in the established rules concerning the name of the crime to be entered in the indictment and the non-prosecution despite the deletion of all the provisions related to habitual crimes. Therefore, the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the claim of mental disability is that the defendant, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined, caused the crime of this case, and the method of the crime.