(a) "Risk of re-offending" and criteria for judgment under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act;

(b) A case denying the risk of repeating a crime against a person who has committed larceny over four occasions without any specified occupation; and

(c) If there is no positive evidence, the police alone recognizes the risk of recidivism;

A. The risk of re-offending as a protective custody requirement under Article 5(2)2 of the Social Protection Act requires a lack of possibility of re-offending only with the possibility of re-offending, and the judgment criteria should be strictly determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, means and method of committing the crime, motive and circumstances after committing the crime, and the same and similar criminal records.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant has no certain occupation and has committed larceny on four occasions to raise living expenses, the possibility of recidivism cannot be ruled out, but even if the crime is considered to have been damped, it is difficult to conclude that there is a considerable probability of recidivism in light of this, since it is also possible to become an opportunity for correcting personality in full view of the circumstances where there is no previous conviction for larceny, which is the same kind as the crime in this case, and there is no previous conviction for larceny, and since there is little work experience as a deep-sea fishing vessel crew member at the time of the crime, and there is little difficulty in living, and there is also a possibility that it will be an opportunity for correcting personality in depth after being detained.

C. Even if the Defendant led to a confession from the police 37 times, insofar as the likelihood of the crime is not recognized, it cannot be considered as true to have taken the risk of recidivism.

(a)Article 5(2)(c) of the Social Protection Act; Articles 308 and 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2564, 81Do33 Decided November 24, 1981, 81Do3116, 81Do104 Decided February 23, 1982, 82Do401 Decided September 28, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Do483 Decided February 8, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Dong-sik

Daegu High Court Decision 83No628, 83No146 delivered on June 21, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The risk of recidivism as a protective custody requirement under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act requires a sufficient probability of recidivism, and the judgment criteria shall be strictly determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, means and method of crime, motive and circumstances after the crime, and existence of similar criminal records. Although the defendant committed larceny more than four times, the court below dismissed the request for protective custody of this case on the ground that the defendant does not have a criminal record of larceny identical to this case except where the defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence due to a violation of the Stacking of Secrets Act, because the means and method are relatively simple, simple, and simple, and it is inevitable for the defendant to commit this case due to lack of living, but it is inevitable that the crime was committed in depth after detention, and the sound direction is expected to change in the future, and all other circumstances indicated in the record are considered.

According to the records, although the applicant for re-offending could not be excluded in light of the fact that the defendant lives together with the non-indicted 2 (years 20) for six months without a certain occupation at the time of committing the crime, and that the defendant has committed the crime four times to raise living expenses, the possibility of re-offending cannot be determined. However, even if the crime is considered to have been damped, it is difficult to conclude that there is a considerable probability of re-offending in light of the above circumstances, and therefore, it is difficult to conclude that there is a considerable probability of re-offending, and therefore, the court below's measure is justifiable in the same purport, as long as it appears to be true even if the defendant led to the 37th session, such as the theory of the prosecution, to the police without pride.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without any need to decide whether or not the crime of this case is habitually habitually. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)