2. Aggravated punishment for a repeated offense is due to disregarding the warning function of punishment and increasing the responsibility for the act of the offender by committing another crime. Furthermore, it is intended to achieve the criminal policy objective called the prevention of recidivism. As such, it cannot be said that a judge goes against the principle of responsibility based on the responsibility, and it cannot be said that the judge’s punishment is an excessive punishment, in violation of the principle of proportionality, since it properly limits the requirements and degree of aggravation of repeated offense so that he/she can lead to an appropriate sentence according to specific circumstances, such as the protection of the legal interest of the latter, the nature of the crime, and the relationship with

In addition, the possibility of social criticism is high in that repeated crime disregards the warning function of punishment against the preceding offender and again commits a crime, and considering the trend of these repeated crimes increasing, the aggravated punishment is subject to criminal policy consideration for crime prevention and social defense, and thus, it is reasonable and reasonable discrimination. Therefore, the provision on aggravated punishment of repeated crime cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality.

Therefore, Article 35 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Constitution.

( Constitutional Court Order 209Hun-Ba63, 2010Hun-Ba364 and 409, 2010Hun-Ba548, 2011Hun-Ba6 (combined) Decided May 26, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2009Hun-Ba63, 2010Hun-Ba364 and 409, 2010Hun-Ba548, and 201Hun-Ba6)

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.