The case holding that there is no risk of recidivism under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

Even if an applicant for a retrial was sentenced to more than three years and six months in total in prison due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and a crime similar thereto, and in this case, five times in five times in the instant case, if he/she was found to have habituality of the larceny, he/she has been married after the execution of the final sentence was completed and has been working in a certain workplace, etc. and has been working in his/her family and occupation outside of the past criminal environment and has been working in a certain workplace and has been making efforts for regeneration, he/she cannot be deemed to have a danger to the requester for a retrial under Article 5(2)2 of the Social Protection Act.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do81 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Article 5(1)720 of the Social Protection Act, Gong739No1686 delivered on December 9, 1986) 86Do133 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Article 5(35)720-1 of the Social Protection Act, Gong793No175 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong813)

Defendant

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred and twenty days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized divers (No. 4) shall be confiscated.

The claim for protective custody of this case is dismissed.

On August 24, 1983, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Busan District Court on June 12, 1984 and six months from September 4, 1985 by the same court on September 4, 1985 and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual Larceny) and completed the execution of the last sentence on November 23, 1986;

1. On October 14, 1987, around 00: (a) in the inner room of the victim non-indicted 1 (Nam, 17 years of age) located in Ansan-si (detailed address omitted); (b) in the unfolded and intruded into the inner room of the victim non-indicted 1 (Nam, 17 years of age) and had a 40,000 won at the market price of treatment electronic car sets (Evidence 5) owned by him; and (c) thefted them;

2. On the 26th of the same month, around 15:00, 15:00 of the same month, having opened a door by putting dracks in a row house of Non-Indicted 2 (Nam, 40 years old) located in the same city (detailed address omitted), opened a dracks, and intrudes it, having a total of 50,00 won in their own market price (proof No. 2) and thefted;

3. At that time, Nonindicted Party 2 opened a door in the room of the victim Nonindicted Party 3 (Inn, 26 years of age) and intrudes into that room, with a total of KRW 50,000 (No. 3) market value of the woman’s possession, and thefts, by holding and impairing the door in the room of the victim Nonindicted Party 3 (Inn, 26 years of age);

4. On January 25, 198, at around 11:00, the victim non-indicted 4 (Taking a world address omitted, 21 years old) located in the same city through the kitchen, put a dricker into a house by opening a kitchen, and intrudes the house with a 50,000 won at the market price of one car sets (No. 6) owned by the female, and steals it;

5. On February 12, 12:00 of the same year, the door gate francing off the door francing from the body of the victim non-indicted 5 (Taking off, 51 years old) located in the same city at around 12:0, and the door francing off the door francing and intrusion into the door francing, with the amount equivalent to KRW 400,000 at the market price of the treatment electronic blade television 1 (No. 1).

The remainder of the facts in the ruling, except the first head and habitual, of the ruling, shall not be

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court by the defendant;

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the statements made by Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in preparation of a judicial police assistant;

1. As to the records of seizure prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, statements corresponding thereto, etc. may be recognized by integrating them, and as to the first head of the judgment;

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court by the defendant;

1. The criminal records of the defendant prepared by the head of the Ansan Police Station may be recognized by corresponding statements. The habitualness of the judgment is proved as follows: (a) the defendant has been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such as the first head of the judgment; (b) and (c) the motive and method of the crime in the judgment and repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment during the short time after the release.

Article 5-4(1) and Article 329 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes Act"), comprehensively, the judgment of the defendant is subject to Article 5-4(1) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act. The defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment, and the defendant committed a repeated crime within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act, because the first head's violation of the Special Crimes Act (thief) in the judgment is prior to the first head's violation of the same Act (thief), and the defendant committed a repeated crime in accordance with Article 35 of the same Act, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as that the defendant is in depth divided into the crime of this case. Thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years within the limited term of punishment reduced by Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act, and the number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the above punishment, and the defendant shall be confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1) of the same Act.

The facts constituting the cause of the instant protective custody claim are as follows: (a) as seen in the above facts of the crime, a person who is recognized as habitually larceny due to several criminal facts and is in danger of recidivism, and is sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of five years or more; and (b) as such, a person who is recognized as habitually larceny due to several criminal facts and commits the instant crime corresponding to a maximum of five years or more; (c) as seen in the above, the person who is subject to protective custody claim in question is considered as having committed the instant crime; and (d) further, whether the person subject to protective custody is likely to

The danger of recidivism should be highly probable, and the criteria for its determination should be determined by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the period between the Defendant’s growth process, family relation, education and living level, character and intelligence, occupation and labor desire, and the crime in this case; and (b) the motive for committing the crime in this case; (c) methods and frequency of the crime in this case; and (d) the statement in this court after the crime committed by Nonindicted 11 on November 23, 1986 after completion of the execution of the above last sentence; and (b) the Defendant’s age reaches 28 years of age after the completion of the crime, it is difficult to find that the Defendant’s request for punishment was made 11 or marriage in the early 12th of the same year; and (d) the Defendant’s request for punishment of the crime in this case was made with good faith to maintain the life as an employee of the Sinsan Electrical and Emar Empiste, and it was found that there was no other reason to acknowledge the danger of recidivism in the past crime in this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee E-Defendant (Presiding Judge)