폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습상해)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The facts charged in this case and a summary of the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is ① imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Cheongju District Court's Incheon Branch on April 14, 198, ② one hundred thousand won as a fine for the same crime from the same assistance on January 11, 1990; ③ one million won as a fine for the same crime from the same assistance on January 11, 1990; ④ two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime from the same assistance on February 7, 191; ⑤ two years of the suspension of the execution of one year and six months for the same reason as a quasi robbery at the Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court on November 1, 202; and ⑤ one year and six months of the suspension of the execution of one year and six months for the same crime from September 18, 2008 to a fine of two hundred thousand won as a fine under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act from the same assistance on September 21, 2017>
On January 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 13:30 on the street around 15, 2015, on the ground that the victim D (the age of 44) was not a vehicle of the Defendant in the company parking lot; and (b) the victim’s head was faced with the wall of the building by putting the victim into flap, flap, flap; and (c) flap, flap.
As a result, the defendant habitually injured the victim about 2 weeks of treatment, such as the impairment of the head part of an unknown head that needs to be treated.
B. (1) As to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment for violent crimes such as the above facts charged until now, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant committed the instant crime as an inherent commission of violent violence.
Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the part of the facts charged of this case that “the Defendant habitually injured the victim” on the ground that there was no habitual nature of violence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.