All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding or legal principles, although the defendant could be found to have committed each crime listed in the facts of the crime at the time of the original judgment habitually, the court below acquitted the defendant on the part of the crime because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged by the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts in this case is that the defendant habitually committed a crime stated in the facts charged in the original trial.

Habitualness in the relevant legal doctrine refers to any brush and the tendency of a crime, and it does not constitute the nature of the act, and it refers to the character that constitutes the character of the offender. As such, the existence of habituality as prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, fact-finding, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the previous crime, similarity with

(2) The court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below on May 11, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). The court below found the defendant not guilty on this part on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant committed the crime of this case with the habit of violence.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below and completed the investigation, and the evidence additionally submitted by the prosecutor to the witness E at the trial, the court below's above determination is the same.