Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Violence) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misunderstanding the legal principles on the habituality of violence.

In addition, Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is not in violation of the Constitution because it has considerably lost legitimacy and balance in the criminal system that should be prepared as a special criminal law, and therefore it cannot be deemed that the above provision of the Act is unconstitutional. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal that

In addition, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing a crime of violence committed on April 10, 2014 (Habitual assault) among the facts charged in this case, based on its stated reasoning.

There is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as to mental disorder.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of proportionality is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only when the court below rendered a sentence of death or imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.