The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Nos. 1, 2, and 3, seized, from the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (in spite of the absence of habituality to the defendant, the court below erred in finding habituality) and the defendant alleged to the effect that the disposition of the court below that forfeited the Nompt (Evidence 2) of this case was unjustifiable, but the above Nompt may be deemed as an article which was provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006). The judgment of the court below that forfeited the Nompt is justified.

Exclusion of Unjustity

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, habitual crimes referred to in Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act do not mean only habitual crimes between each of the crimes listed in the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, but means the habit of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in the subparagraphs of the same paragraph.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, and the method and frequency of the crime, as well as the motive and means of the crime, etc., it is reasonable to deem that there was a habit of committing an act of violence, such as attack, etc. against the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court’s determination that recognized this was acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habitual nature under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, in the instant case where the Defendant committed the instant attack by borrowing video images and personal information leakage, etc. taken a sexual traffic site, the sum of the money received by the Defendant as a criminal act is KRW 39,50,000,000, and a part of the criminal act was committed on the attempted crime, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, background leading to the criminal act, method and method of the criminal act, and thereafter.