The risk of re-offending under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act requires a sufficient possibility of re-offending, and there should be a considerable probability that a person subject to protection may injure the legal peace by committing a crime again in the future. The judgment criteria should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the occupation and environment of the requester for re-offending, the behavior before and after the crime, the motive, means, circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime, etc., and the crime in question cannot be deemed to be a danger of re-offending due to habitual habition (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do108 delivered on August 8, 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that there is no danger of re-offending in light of all the circumstances and circumstances shown in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in this case, is correct and there is no violation of law such as the theory of the lawsuit.

For this reason, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)