The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of injury in this case by misapprehending the legal principles was committed first by the victim F in the process of commencing the assault first and setting up against it, and since the Defendant’s violence is not broken down, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habitual nature, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Habitual” under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not mean only the habitual nature of each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that the term “Habitual nature” means the habit of violence, which covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. The existence of habitual nature as prescribed in Article 2(1) of the breadth Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, past history, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(3) The Defendant’s criminal history, like each of the instant crimes, seems to have damaged alcohol without any particular reason, interfered with business by force, or committed assault with other persons at his/her own expense, and in fact, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) the Defendant had been punished more than 30 times for violent crimes since 1996 up to 196; (ii) the Defendant committed the instant crime again at approximately 6 months after the completion of the execution by having been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime; and (iii) the Defendant’s criminal history appears to have destroyed alcohol without any particular reason, interfered with business by force, or committed assault with other persons at his/her own expense; and (iv) the Defendant’s act of destroying the instant crime was committed in fact, and the victim drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol.