Whether the crime of larceny, special larceny, or habitual larceny and the crime of violation of Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitutes the same or similar crime (negative)

It is difficult to view the crime of violation of Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as the crime of larceny, special larceny, or habitual larceny, and the crime of violation of Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act, by carrying a deadly weapon which is likely to be used for the crime, which is a criminal offense committed by a person who filed a petition for the custody, as the crime of violation.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant-Appellant 1

2

1. For the test and the test (as to the requester 2 for custody):

(National Office of Law, Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 82No964,82No267 delivered on July 2, 1982

All appeals by Defendant and Defendant 1 and Prosecutor are dismissed.

The 60 days out of the detention days after the appeal by the defendant and the requester for detention shall be included in the principal sentence of the defendant case.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal against the Prosecutor’s Appellant 2.

According to the facts established by the court below, the crime of larceny, special larceny, or habitual larceny committed by 2 of the applicant for protective custody at the same time is a crime of violation of Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by carrying a deadly weapon which is likely to be used for a crime. Thus, it is difficult to view the crime of each of the above and the crime of the same or similar crime as the crime of the same kind under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the request for protective custody against 2 of the applicant for protective custody is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the defendant and the defendant and his state appointed defense counsel together.

Examining the evidence cited by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant and the respondent 1 conspired with co-defendant 1 on October 21, 1981 and habitually stolen cash, check, etc. from the handbag of the victim's transfer margin at around 19:30 on October 21, 1981, and the evidence cooking process was examined, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on habitualness, and the court below's measure that deemed that the defendant and the respondent 1 are at risk of re-offending cannot be deemed to be legitimate and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the risk of re-offending, such as the theory

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 60 days of detention days after the appeal by the defendant and the petitioner 1 of the appeal are to be included in the original sentence of the defendant case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)