Article 3 (3) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "any person who habitually commits a crime under paragraph (1) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than seven years." The above provision applies only to a person habitually habitually committing a crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act (a by force of an organization or a group, or by showing a power under the pretending to an organization or a group, or by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles and carrying a dangerous article and committing a crime under Article 2 (1) of the Act), and it does not apply to a person habitually habitually committing a crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act without such habitual nature.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below explained that Article 3 (3) of the Act shall apply not only to the case where a person who habitually commits a crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act, but also to the case where a person who habitually commits an act of violence commits a crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act, as well as to the case where a person who commits a crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act. The defendant is recognized as a habit of violence in light of the previous records, etc. of the judgment of the court below. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the punishment of the defendant under Article 3 (3) of the Act, since the court below should have deliberated and judged whether there is habitual nature of the crime under Article 3 (1) of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to reach the legal principles as to the punishment of the defendant under Article 3 (3) of the Act.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, since the protective custody of this case was imposed pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 1 and attached Table 2 of the Social Protection Act on the premise that the defendant committed a crime under Article 3 (3) of the Act, the whole reversal of this case shall not be exempted.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant and the grounds of appeal by state appointed defense counsel, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per