폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(우범자)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Seized blades (35 cm in total length, 24 cm in length).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.
B. The court below's order of medical treatment and custody to the defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter "defendant") on the grounds that there is no need for medical treatment and danger of recidivism.
2. Determination
A. Ex officio determination as to the number of crimes, the court below considered each of the above crimes as concurrent crimes after applying Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to habitual assault by the defendant.
However, “Habitual” as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not mean only habitual crimes among the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that a person with such habitive walls refers to the habit of violence that covers all the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. Thus, if a person with such other types of crimes under each subparagraph of the Criminal Act listed in each subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act has committed such crimes, each act constitutes a single comprehensive crime of habitual violence under the most severe statutory penalty among each subparagraph.
(2) Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be comprehensively applied to the Defendant’s habitual assault and habitual intimidation, and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be punished for a single crime.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, thereby adversely calculating the scope of punishment by law, and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion related to medical treatment and custody case is discussed.