상습상해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months) is too unreasonable and unfair (the Defendant asserted the first appeal grounds on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles as to habituality and the judgment on the number of crimes). (b) The Defendant’s first appeal grounds were asserted on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to habituality and the judgment on the number of crimes. The Defendant’s sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
2. We examine the part concerning the number of crimes of this case ex officio before determining the error of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.
A. The lower court determined that the crime of habitual injury and the crime of habitual injury were concurrent crimes with the crime of habitual injury, by comprehensively recognizing the Defendant’s act of assault, bodily injury, and intimidation as a crime of habitual injury, including the act of assault, bodily injury, and intimidation, and by carrying dangerous articles.
B. Article 2(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “a person who habitually commits any of the following crimes shall be punished in accordance with the following classifications:
Article 2(1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc., which was amended by Act No. 13718 on Jan. 6, 2016, provides that “Absentity under Article 2(1) of the former Act, is not habitually among the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but is interpreted as a habit of violence, which covers all the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2095, Apr. 26, 2013). As such, the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc., which was amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, did not separate the transitional provisions by deleting Article 2(1).
As such, there was a provision of aggravated constituent elements for violent crimes under the Criminal Code.