The criteria for determining "risk of recidivism" under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act;

Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act means a probable probability that a person subject to a warrant of re-offending will commit a crime in the future. Determination of whether or not there is such possibility shall be objectively determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, environment, occupation, motive of the crime, method of the crime, criminal records, time interval with the last criminal record, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, circumstances after the crime. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant who committed the theft of this case only nine years after the last and the last 9 years has a high criminal record simply because the defendant who committed the larceny of this case was guilty.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 82No373 delivered on July 23, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The risk of recidivism under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a probable probability that the requester for preventive custody will commit a second offense again. Determination of whether or not there exists such risk shall be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, environment, occupation, motive for the crime, method of the crime, criminal records, time interval with the last criminal records, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. It cannot be readily determined that the requester for preventive custody was in danger of recidivism just because there are many criminal records. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant for preventive custody was sentenced four times from January 19, 1956 to June 17, 1971, and the execution of the punishment was completed, and the period from the date of release to the time of the crime in this case is not only one year, but also one time, and the recovery of the crime in this case, and the motive and risk of the crime in this case cannot be determined differently from the motive of the crime in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)