[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)·절도][집31(5)형,178;공1983.12.15.(718),1798]
Whether protective custody regulation is unconstitutional or not
Article 5(2)1 and Article 20 of the Social Protection Act provide for the procedure to judge whether the requirements for protective custody disposition are met and the period of protective custody, which is the subject of the sanction, is appropriate. Thus, this cannot be said to violate the provisions of Article 9 and the latter part of Article 11(1) of the Constitution.
Article 5(2)1, Article 20 of the Social Protection Act, Articles 9 and 11(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon
Seoul High Court Decision 83No1380, 83No278 Decided August 17, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") and defense counsel are examined.
Examining the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance after comparing the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant in the judgment of the court below. Further, the defendant's criminal records were rejected at the time of the crime in this case, and considering the defendant's frequency, contents, the time of the defendant's criminal records, the time of the end of the last sentence, the means and method of the crime in this case, the defendant's age, environment, occupation, education level, etc., the crime in this case resulted from theft's habit, and it is justifiable to recognize the risk of recidivism that the possibility of recidivism exists because it was not abandoned, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the risk of recidivism, and Article 5 (2) 1 and Article 20 of the Social Protection Act provides for the procedure to judge whether the crime in this case is proper by specifying the fact that the requirements for protective custody disposition and the period of protective custody disposition, which is its content, and it cannot be deemed a violation of Article 9 and the latter part of Article 11 (1) of the Constitution, and there is no legitimate ground for appeal.
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act to the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention after the appeal.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)