logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1984. 12. 11. 선고 84도2474,84감도379 판결
[공문서위조,보호감호,절도,특수공무집행방해,특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반][공1985.2.15.(746),226]
Main Issues

Whether some of the habitual offenders is subject to the Social Protection Act, and whether the same Act applies to the whole habitual offender.

Summary of Judgment

If some of the habitual offenders are subject to the Social Protection Act, the Social Protection Act is applied to the whole habitual offenders.

15 Judgment

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 82Do600, 82Du115 Decided May 25, 1982

Defendant, Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defense Counsel

Attorney Seo-sik,

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 84No857,84No160 decided October 6, 1984

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The ten days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the evidence employed by the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is sufficient to recognize the fact of the special obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in this case, we affirm the measures of the court below that maintained it, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, so the arguments cannot be

2. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant's final termination of the execution of punishment is recognized as being October 3, 1980 and the so-called 11,12,13 of the so-called "so-called" of this case, which is a single comprehensive crime, was committed on November 15, 1983; 12.17, and 21 of the same year after three years have passed since then. However, if some of habitual offenders are subject to the so-called "Social Protection Act," it shall be subject to the application of the Social Protection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do600, May 25, 1982). Thus, there is no objection to this.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and one copy of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

arrow