If only a custody case is subject to an appeal, the court below's decision as to the violation of the rules of evidence as to the recognition of the criminal facts of the defendant case shall be justified

In a case where a person subject to the review of custody files an appeal only against the part concerning custody cases in an appellate judgment, and waives the appeal against the part concerning a prosecuted case, the appellate court's judgment which found the person guilty of a prosecuted offense shall not be deemed as a ground for appeal as to a custody case on the ground that it erred in

Article 20 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do185 delivered on December 22, 1987, 89Do144 delivered on November 14, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 89Do208, 217 delivered on February 9, 1989

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Song-jin

Seoul High Court Decision 89No2075,89No183 Decided October 17, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the first ground of appeal by the requester for defense and his defense counsel

In a case where a person who filed an appeal for the custody of a defendant files an appeal only against the part concerning a custody case in an appellate judgment, and waives the appeal with respect to the part concerning a prosecuted case, the appellate court's judgment which found the defendant guilty of a prosecuted crime cannot be deemed a ground for appeal as to a custody case on the ground that it erred by violating the rules of evidence against the judgment of conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do185, Dec. 22, 1987). Thus, the arguments

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to relevant evidence and records, there is no reason to discuss the judgment of the court below that recognized the risk of re-offending as a person subject to protection, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If a person eligible for protection falls under the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Social Protection Act and it is recognized that there is a danger of recidivism, the court should place the person under protective custody. Therefore, it is evident that there is no reason to discuss that the person subject to protective custody is excessive and unfair.

4. Therefore, the appeal by the petitioner for the retrial is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)