Cases that the crime of larceny and stolen good offices do not constitute a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act.

The reason stipulated in Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act concerning the criteria for determining the same or similarity of a forward and rear crime is based on the specific facts of the crime. Thus, if the specific facts of the defendant's habitual larceny criminal records and the mediation of stolen goods are not recognized as the same or similar crime by the record, the fact that the crime of larceny and stolen goods is exempted from being committed in preparation for the nature of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the tendency of the crime, etc.

Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Prosecutor and Defendant

Attorney Shin Young-young (Korean Civil Code)

Seoul High Court Decision 82No59, 82No18 Decided March 10, 1982

All appeals against the defendant's appeal and prosecutor's claim for protective custody are dismissed.

25 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

First, we examine the defendant and his defense counsel's grounds for appeal.

The reason why the sentencing is inappropriate like the theory of lawsuit is that in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is sentenced, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the criminal records of the defendant are the criminal records of the same type of larceny or the criminal acts of this case, which cannot be deemed to fall under any of Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act, and thus, the defendant's criminal records of larceny and the criminal acts of stolen goods cannot be deemed to fall under any of the crimes of the same kind or similar crimes. Thus, the court below's decision is justified since the crime of larceny and stolen goods cannot be deemed to fall under any of the crimes of the same kind or similar crimes under Article 6 (2) 1 through 5 of the Social Protection Act, and it is clear in the legal text that the crime of larceny and stolen goods does not meet the criteria for determining the same or similar crimes under Article 6 (2) 6 of the same Act. Since subparagraph 6 of the same Article is based on the specific facts of the crime, the facts of the criminal records of this case, such as habitual larceny, etc., which are judged by the defendant's decision, are not recognized to fall under the same or similar crimes. The fact that the two crimes cause each other crimes does not constitute an unlawful act of the same kind of crime.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, 25 days of pre-trial detention after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)