A. In a case where the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. constitutes a special law of the Criminal Act. In light of the legislative purpose of the Act and the first priority of the special law, in a case where all the elements for establishing violation of the Criminal Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. are satisfied, a prosecutor may, at his/her discretion, institute a prosecution by applying a special law. In this case, the court shall not punish the defendant by applying the general law that the prosecutor did not institute a prosecution. However, the court below, on the ground that the defendant was punished by a habitual attack under the Criminal Act that the prosecutor did not institute a prosecution, there was an error of law

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. From January 6, 2016, Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which includes the pertinent provision, is entirely deleted, and thus, the defendant cannot be punished as the above applicable provision, and the defendant shall not be punished as a crime of habitual assault under Articles 351 and 350 of the Criminal Act, which stipulate the same requirement. Thus, the prosecutor's allegation of misapprehension of the legal principles on the premise that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual assault) and the validity of the applicable provision is no longer meaningful.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of misapprehension is without merit.

B. The defendant was punished as a same kind of crime and did not have completed the execution of the sentence, and thus, again commits the same type of crime, the number of crimes and the amount of damage are considerable, and up to the trial of the party.