The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles does not commit the instant crime on the face of violence and habits.

The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Habitual” under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not mean only the habitualness between the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that the term “Habitual” means the habit of violence that 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 such habitualness shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, and environment transfer, motive, method and place of the crime, interval with the crime committed before, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(2) On May 11, 1992, a fine of KRW 500,00 is imposed for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 14, 1986, as follows: (a) a fine of KRW 500,00 is imposed for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on May 26, 1992; (b) a fine of KRW 500,00 is imposed for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on June 12, 1992; (c) a fine of KRW 50,00,000 is imposed for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 22, 1993; (d) a fine of KRW 500,000,000 from the Seoul Northern District Court on October 20, 1994 to the Seoul Northern District Court on Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.