The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not commit the instant crime on the part of the commission of violent assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “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 “Habituality” means the habit of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008). The existence of habituality under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, and environment, motive, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(1) In cases where a person commits a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act at the time of his/her imprisonment with prison labor on January 26, 2012, the Supreme Court Decisions 201Do15356, May 11, 2006; 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006; i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; i.e., the period of suspension of execution in August 2, 1993; 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor on April 18, 1997; 4 years of suspension of execution in June 6, 199; 10 months from imprisonment with prison labor on February 5, 199 to a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act at the Seoul Central District Court on February 204 to a fine of 200, Seoul Central District Court on April 2004 to a fine of 206.