(a) Necessary defense for the person to whom the proviso of Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act is applicable;

B. Protective custody disposition and court discretion

A. Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to custody cases for the defendant and the respondent subject to the application of the proviso of Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act, and thus, it is not a requisite attorney-at-law.

B. In a case where it is deemed that a protective custody application satisfies the requirements for protective custody under the Social Protection Act, the court only takes protective custody measures and there is no room for discretion regarding the period.

A. Article 5(1) proviso of the Social Protection Act: Article 21(2) A. Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 5 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2869,83No570 Decided January 12, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for fifteen days.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 21(2) of the Social Protection Act provides that Article 282 and Article 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to a protective custody case and a mentally or physically handicapped person who are not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act, namely, a protective custody case and a protective custody case and a protective custody case of a person who are not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act for 10 years, or a mentally or physically handicapped person, where a person whose punishment is mitigated under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act commits a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment and is recognized to be in danger of recidivism. Thus, Article 5(1) proviso of the Social Protection Act provides that Article 282 of the same Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to protective custody cases for a defendant and a person subject to protective custody without a counsel appointed by a state appointed by a public defender.

Meanwhile, in a case where it is deemed that a protective custody application satisfies the requirements for protective custody for a protective custody application, the protective custody disposition is merely a prescribed protective custody disposition, and there is no room for discretion in the court with regard to the period. Therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal for this case’s protective custody disposition.

The appeal is dismissed, or there is no reason.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are to include part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal in imprisonment.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)