The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

A. The lower court applied Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”) and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act to the criminal facts No. 1 as indicated in the judgment.

As the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc. was enacted on January 6, 2016 by Act No. 13718, the part of Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Punishment of Violence Act, which provides that a person who habitually commits an act of violence shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than one year, was deleted. This is deemed to be the amendment of the Act based on reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was too serious, and thus, the former Punishment of Violences Act cannot be applied to this part of the charges.

On the other hand, the prosecutor prosecuted the crime of habitual injury (including habitual injury) under this part of the facts charged and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and all of the above crimes are committed on the grounds of the same crime of violence committed by the defendant. As seen below, the crimes of habitual injury under Articles 264, 257(1), and 260(1) of the Minor Criminal Act (the crimes of this case are included in this part of the facts charged, and are included in this part of the facts charged, and are within the scope that can be recognized without any changes in the indictment) should be applied. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. Habitualness referred to in Article 264 of the Criminal Code refers to the habition of violence that covers all the criminal acts listed in the same Article.

Therefore, if a person with the above habitive walls has committed another class of crimes as stipulated in Article 264 of the Criminal Act.