The case recognizing the risk of recidivism in the crime committed nine years after the execution of the last sentence;

Although the respondent committed the instant crime after nine years from the completion of the final sentence, considering that the previous criminal facts and the instant crimes were committed by retailing methods, and that the Defendant was detained in the retail shop, and immediately after being released from the acquittal in the appellate trial, there was a risk of repeating a crime.

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Seoul High Court Decision 83No976, 83No204 Decided July 13, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

A comprehensive review by comparing the trial records of the first instance court's judgment with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts constituting the crime and the requirements for care and custody against the person subject to protective custody. According to the judgment of the court below, even though the person subject to protective custody completed the execution of the last sentence on June 1974 and committed the crime of this case, the facts of the previous criminal records and the crime of this case were committed by retailing method, and the Seoul High Court's non-guilty judgment (three years in the first instance court and seven years in the protective custody) was handed down in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (three years in the first instance court, and seven years in the protective custody) was released on June 3, 1982, and was immediately prevented from committing the crime of this case, the court below's judgment that held that there was a risk of repeating the crime of this case is not erroneous in the determination of the risk of repeating the crime.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)