The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to habitual nature of the crime of this case, which found the habitual nature of the crime of this case, although the crime of this case cannot be seen as the realization of the defendant's habition of violence.

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

2. Determination

B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion 1) The Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Act”)

(3) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret that “Habitual death” as referred to in Article 2(1) means a habit of an act of violence, which covers all the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008). The existence of habituality as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, and transit, motive, method, and place of the crime, interval with the crime committed before, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a prolonged period of 20 years from the date of suspension of execution, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 10 years from August 21, 2008.