The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles has strong social ties, as well as new fluorial relationship with the Defendant, and that the Defendant has a good fluorial relationship with her natives and considered South Korea, and that the workplace life also adapts with her natives, although the Defendant had a similar criminal record, she is due to a sexual self-harm adjustment disorder rather than her habitual nature, and the content is not the same as that of the instant crime, and there is no 8 months or longer, and the motive and means of the instant crime are also dynamic and incidental to the instant crime. In light of the fact that the instant crime was not a habitual nature of the Defendant’s residence intrusion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby having a habitual nature of the Defendant.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, “Habitual” under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not mean only the habitual nature of each of the crimes listed in each of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, but also means the habit of violence, which covers all of the crimes listed in each of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph. The existence of habitual nature under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences Act shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, and fact, motive, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657 Decided August 21, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176 Decided May 11, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 201Do15356 Decided January 26, 2012, etc.). The lower court duly adopted and investigated the case.