The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

The lower court applied Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”), Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, as to the fact that the Defendant habitually abused the said victim by assaulting the victim by drinking at a entertainment station located in Gangnam-si on August 27, 2015, when taking one time between the face of the victim I.

In this regard, Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Punishment of Violence Act, which provides that the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. was enacted by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, for the punishment of habitual assault offenders by imprisonment with prison labor for more than one year, was deleted. This part of the former Punishment of Violences Act, which appears to be the amendment of the Act based on reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious, is no longer applicable to this part of the charges, and the former Punishment of Violence Act is no longer applicable to this part of the charges, and Articles 264 and 260 (1) of the latter Punishment of Violences Act should be applied (the crime of habitual assault is included in this part of the charges, and it is within the scope that can be recognized without any changes in the indictment). In this regard, the judgment of the court below has become no longer maintained.

On the other hand, the court below held that the above crimes and the remaining crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since a single sentence was sentenced, all of the judgment of the court below could not escape from destruction.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, on the grounds that the above judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.