(a) Criteria for determining the risk of recidivism under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act;

(b) The case holding that there is no risk of reoffending;

A. The risk of recidivism under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a probable probability that a person subject to protection may violate legal peace by committing another crime again in the future. The criteria for such determination shall be strictly and objectively determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the age, occupation, criminal record, interval of the last criminal record, time and interval between the last criminal record, motive for and method of the crime, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

(b) The case holding that there is no risk of reoffending;

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Du81 delivered on September 11, 1984, 82Du483 delivered on February 8, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 87Du161 delivered on November 24, 1987

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 87No973, 87No133 decided August 20, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. The risk of recidivism under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a probable probability that a person subject to protection may violate legal peace by committing another crime again in the future. The criteria for such determination shall be strictly and objectively determined by comprehensively taking into account all circumstances such as the age, occupation, criminal record, interval of the last criminal record, time and interval between the last criminal record, motive for the crime, method of the crime, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and it cannot be readily concluded that a person subject to protection has a risk of repeating a crime merely because there are many criminal records (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do81, Sep. 11, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 82Do483, Feb. 8, 1983).

2. Review of the reasoning of the judgment below

The court below held that the applicant for a warrant of protective custody was prior to the judgment, despite the fact that he again committed the crime of this case even though he was under the period of the suspension of the execution, but he was found to have committed the crime of this case. Meanwhile, after the execution of the last sentence on March 1981, the applicant for a warrant of protective custody was married to the present wife and her family, was engaged in the crew life and her department, and her life and her lives faithfully and faithfully. The crime of this case was committed during the second year prior to the crime of this case, while the applicant for a warrant of protective custody was under the above her life and her life, she reported the victims' lives outside the home or her store and reported the items close to the deceased's house and her store outside the house and did not contain any errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism, and there is no reason to view that the applicant for a warrant of re-offending was just in light of the above legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)