The scope of crimes that constitute habitual crimes under Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the method of determining the number of crimes of habitual violence.

"Habitual" as referred to in Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not mean only habitual violence between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that it means the habit of an act of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. Thus, if a person with such habition has committed other crimes of the Criminal Act listed in each subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, each of such acts constitutes a blanket crime of the most severe statutory penalty.

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Do3286 Decided November 23, 1976 (Gong1990Sang, 1199) 90Do653 Decided April 24, 1990

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2007No1623 Decided April 17, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Habitual violence referred to in Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not mean only habitual violence between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that a person with the above habition refers to the habit of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. Thus, if a person with the above habition commits several other crimes under each Article of the Criminal Act listed in each subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, each of such acts constitutes a single comprehensive crime of habitual violence among the subparagraphs (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Do3286, Nov. 23, 1976; 90Do653, Apr. 24, 190; 90Do653, Apr. 24, 199). In such cases, if it is recognized that the crime of violence alone does not constitute a single comprehensive crime of violence with the above persons or jointly with the other persons, 98Do1984, Sept. 19, 1998).

The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint threat) committed by the defendant after being sentenced on August 2, 2007 at the Seoul Northern District Court and sentenced on August 2, 2007, both of the defendant's infringement of the Punishment of Violences, etc. in this case, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint threat) and the above established crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) are an inclusive crime. Therefore, the above final judgment is just and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as to habitual violence and general violation of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)