Habitual violence referred to in Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Exposure Act”) does not mean only the habitual violence between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but refers to the habit of violence that involves all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. Therefore, if a person with the above habition has committed any other crimes under the Criminal Act listed in each subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Exposure Act, each of the above acts constitutes a blanket crime of habitual violence under each subparagraph of the same Article (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008).

The court of first instance acknowledged, based on the evidence adopted, the following facts: ① the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received money; ② the victims shall be threatened with 19 times in total from September 14, 2009 to August 201; ③ the victims shall be threatened habitually from December 10, 2009 to September 14, 201; ③ the victims shall be threatened with 44,60,000 won in total by threatening the victims over 31 times in total; and the court below maintained the first instance court’s aggravated punishment by taking into account each of the above crimes under Article 347(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 of the breadth Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 350 of the Criminal Act, and Article 37 of the former part of the Criminal Act, as it is, each of the above crimes shall be deemed concurrent crimes.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the points of habitual intimidation and the points of habitual intimidation constitute a comprehensive crime of habitual violence under Article 2(1)3 of the Act, which is a serious statutory penalty, and cannot be deemed as constituting each of the crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act, which constitutes the crime of habitual intimidation and the crime of habitual intimidation, as stated in its reasoning. Nevertheless, the lower court’s measure taken by deeming the Defendant as a substantive concurrent crime and maintaining the first instance court, instead of deeming the above crime of habitual intimidation and the crime of habitual intimidation as a single comprehensive crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)