Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. On July 8, 2012, the Defendant did not assault or injure the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, in addition to assaulting the victim D’s chest by hand on July 8, 2012.

B. Prosecutor 1) The instant crime by misapprehending the legal principles is due to the Defendant’s expression of violent assault, but the lower court did not recognize it by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of habituality under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the Prosecutor’s argument of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, career, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(2) In light of the circumstances and attitudes of the crime of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the crime of this case was committed by the victim D (the defendant and the victim were married on February 5, 1994 and they were divorced around August 201, 201) and the husband and wife fighting, and in full view of the time interval and attitude of the crime of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the crime of this case was committed by the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

B. We examine ex officio the remaining grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

1. As to each assault listed in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the Criminal Act is applicable.