The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is a habit of violence against the defendant in relation to the crime of habitual injury in the judgment of the court below.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, habitual crime refers to any mistake of a criminal offender and the tendency of a crime, which does not constitute the essence of the act, and it refers to the character that constitutes the character of the offender. Thus, the existence of habitual injury as prescribed in the crime of habitual injury shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, occupation, environment, criminal record, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006).2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant against the victim from January 29, 2017 to the same year.

3. It is recognized that the Defendant used violence more than 12 times until December 21, 200, and the Defendant used violence repeatedly and repeatedly in a short period from the girent residence to the victim, and the motive of the assault is too minor. In full view of the various circumstances such as the method and frequency of the Defendant’s crime, interval of each crime, time and time, place of the crime, similarity with the contents of the crime, environment, motive of the crime, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s crime of this case is based on the Defendant’s expression of force.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant repeatedly used violence against the victim for two months, the victim suffered from the Defendant’s assaulting two boness and the boness of the bones, and the telecommunication. The degree of such injury is significant, and the victim is a woman living together with the Defendant, and the Defendant is the victim.