The appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act aggravated punishment of repeated crimes as to the grounds of appeal that Article 35 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional is clear that, even though punishment was imposed against the preceding offender, the punishment was imposed against the former offender by disregarding the warning function of the punishment, and that, even if punishment was imposed against the former offender, it is not punishable again as a whole with the latter offender. Since the former offender itself is subject to adjudication and is punished again, the punishment is not aggravated.

In addition, repeated crime is highly likely to be subject to social criticism in that it disregards the warning function of punishment against the preceding offender and again commits a crime. Considering the trend of these repeated crimes increasing, the aggravated punishment based on criminal policy considerations for crime prevention and social defense, and thus, it is reasonable and reasonable discrimination. Article 35 of the Criminal Act on the aggravation of repeated crime cannot be deemed to violate the principle of res judicata or equality.

The Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba63 Decided May 26, 201 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba63, May 26, 201).

2. According to the record, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance on whether a repeated crime is a substantial repeated crime, and only asserted unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the incomplete hearing as to whether it is a substantial repeated crime cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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