beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Assault) in the judgment of the defendant and October 2012.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles and the records that Defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) were punished several times for violent crimes, and the number of the crimes of this case (nine times), period (one year and seven months), and the object of the crime (one year and seven months) are similar, the Defendant can be recognized as habitually committing the crime of this case, but the crime of this case is not based on the Defendant’s attack. In addition, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to habituality.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and two million won of fine) is unreasonably minor.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles (1) is that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months on September 15, 2012, and there was no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment due to the crime of extortion or the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, etc. In addition, the crime of extortion which became final and conclusive is committed by assaulting the victim and taking cash and tobacco in a very different way from the crime of extortion, and the crime of extortion by the defendant was committed more than nine times for a period of one year and seven months, and it is difficult to recognize that the crime of extortion by the defendant was committed by the crime of this case only nine times for a period of one year and seven months. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty only of the crime of extortion by denying habitualness.
(2) Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Habitual” in the following) does not mean only the habitualness between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that it means the habition of all the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, and therefore, Article 2(1) of the Exposure Act is applicable to a person with the above habition.