The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. “Habitualness” under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Act”) does not mean the habitualness between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but it is reasonable to interpret that it means the habit of an act of violence that combines all the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008). The existence of habituality under Article 2(1) of the Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, and details of the crime, interval between the crimes committed before, and the contents of the crime.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below on May 11, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). ① In addition to the crime of this case, the defendant was sentenced to a fine or imprisonment with prison labor for 28 times from July 198 to January 201, 201, and was sentenced several times of imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months due to the crime of bodily injury, etc., and was sentenced to a fine again as violence during the period of repeated crime and four times after the execution of the sentence was completed, and the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime. ② In most cases of assault committed by the defendant, the victim, who was the victim of this case, was sexually ill or physically disabled without any specific motive or motive, and the victim seems to have any special desire for the victim, even if the victim was under the influence of assault by the victim.