Habitual referred to in Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Exposure Act") means not only the habituality between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but also the habit of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph.

Therefore, if a person with the above habitive wall commits a crime of multiple different types of crimes under each of the Criminal Code listed in Article 2(1) of the Exposure Act, each of the above acts constitutes a single comprehensive crime of habitual violence under the most severe statutory penalty among the subparagraphs thereof.

(2) According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008). The court below affirmed Article 347(1)1 of the Act and Article 283(1)1 of the Act, and Article 283(1) and the former part of the Criminal Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Sep. 14, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22014, Sep. 14, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20220, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20220, Feb. 22, 2005).

However, in light of the above legal principles, the points of habitual intimidation and the points of habitual intimidation constitute a blanket crime of habitual violence under Article 2 (1) 3 of the Act, which is a serious statutory penalty, and cannot be deemed as constituting each of the crimes under Article 2 (1) of the Act, which constitutes the crime of habitual intimidation and the crime of habitual intimidation, as stated in its reasoning.

Nevertheless, unlike this, the defendant's habitual intimidation and habitual intimidation are committed against the defendant.