Whether protective custody disposition for a person with a sentence prior to the enforcement of the Social Protection Act, the principle of non-payment of law, and the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy are violated.

Although the punishment power of a person who has been sentenced three or more times for a crime of the same or similar kind under Article 5(1)1(1)1(b) of the Social Protection Act belongs to the date prior to the enforcement of the above Act, if the crime of the same or similar kind of crime again falls under the scope after the enforcement of the above Act, he/she is subject to protective custody under the above Act, and the above Social Protection Act does not violate the Constitution that provides for the principle of non-payment or the principle of non-

Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Social Protection Act, Article 12 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3161 delivered on February 14, 1984, Decision 85Do1206 delivered on July 23, 1985

Defendant and Defendant’s Defendant and Defendant’s Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Jeon Soo-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 85No138,85No15 Decided April 19, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for forty-five days.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel are collected together with the defendant and the defense counsel.

1. When collecting evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it shall be sufficient to acknowledge the crime at the time of the original judgment, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant and the requester for the custody at the time of the crime of this case had a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore there

2. Although the punishment power of a person who has been sentenced three or more times for a crime of the same or similar kind under Article 5 (1) 1 and (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act belongs to the day before the enforcement of the above Act, if the crime of the same or similar kind of crime which has been committed again belongs to the day after the enforcement of the above Act, he/she shall be subject to protective custody of the above law, and if the above social protection law does not violate the Constitution that provides for the principle of non-payment or the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy, he/she shall not be accepted. Thus, he/she shall not be allowed

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the days of detention after the appeal is to be included in imprisonment with prison labor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)