The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court aggravated repeated crimes pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the previous crime and again committed each of the instant crimes within three years after the completion of the enforcement thereof.

However, the provisions of this criminal law that punish repeated crimes are punished for the reason that they are criminal offenders released, so they violate the principle of equality under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Aggravated punishment of repeated crime claiming misunderstanding of the legal principles is due to disregarding the warning function of punishment and increasing the responsibility of the criminal act by committing another crime. Moreover, since it is intended to achieve the criminal policy objective of the prevention of recidivism, it cannot be said that the principle of responsibility based on the responsibility for the act is contrary to the criminal law. Since a judge limits properly the requirements and the degree of the aggravation of repeated crime so that he/she can lead to an appropriate sentence in accordance with the specific circumstances, such as the benefit and quality of the crime, and the relation with the former, he/she cannot be deemed as an excessive punishment contrary to the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment.

In addition, the repeated crime is likely to be subject to social criticism in that it disregards the warning function of punishment against the preceding offender and again commits a crime. Considering the trend of such repeated crime increasing, the punishment is aggravated based on criminal policy consideration of crime prevention and social defense, and thus, it is reasonable and reasonable discrimination. Therefore, the provision on aggravated punishment of repeated crime cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality.

Therefore, Article 35 of the Criminal Act does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba63, 2009Hun-Ba63, 2010Hun-Ba364, 409, 2010Hun-Ba548, 2010, 548, 2011Hun-Ba6, etc.).