The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's previous conviction, and the contents of the crime in this case, it is not recognized that the habitual nature of violent crime is not habitually committed against the defendant. The shoulderer's disease used for the crime No. 2 in the judgment cannot be viewed as a dangerous object. Since the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, the court below

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, “Habitual” as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences Act does not mean only the habitual nature between each of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph, but means the habit of violence that covers all of the crimes listed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to a fine several times for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act or a crime of injury. On April 9, 2012, this court was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon injury, etc.) and repeatedly committed a similar crime, and thus, the court below did not err in its judgment, and there was no error in finding that the defendant’s body was legitimate in relation to the investigation of injury and injury of the defendant.