The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of habitual assault, despite the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

According to records, on November 10, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court on November 10, 2016. The judgment became final and conclusive on March 31, 2017.

Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes by a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment for the crime of this case shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

B. Determination of habitual nature of violence, however, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

Habituality in a crime refers to a certain brusity of a criminal and the tendency of a crime, which is not the nature that forms the essence of the act, but the character that forms the character of the offender. As such, the existence of habituality under Article 264 of the Criminal Act shall be determined by comprehensively 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 between the crime committed before and after the crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). Taking into account the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant has habitualness of violence

may be appointed by a person.

(1) The defendant shall be the defendant in 1989.