Materials concerning habitual recognition of sex;

The fact that protective disposition under the Juvenile Act is imposed also becomes data to recognize habitualness.

Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Juvenile Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 73No980 delivered on April 25, 1973, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 73No980 delivered on April 25, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

80 days, out of the days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined. The defendant's ground of appeal is not the theft of the malicious period that the court below recognized as the theft, but the defendant was ordered by the court below's use of pro-Japanese delivery, but the defendant was guilty without any evidence in violation of the rules of evidence. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined as follows. The defendant's grounds of appeal are as follows. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined as follows. The defendant's ground of appeal is that the defendant's act of receiving the protective disposition under the Juvenile Act does not go against the rules of evidence for the future and correction and correction of character and character in the special procedure and disposition under the Juvenile Act, and it is not against the original purpose of the Act. Thus, it is sufficient and reasonable to find any error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal nature of the protective disposition and in violation of the rules of evidence.

The following grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined:

Since there is no limit to the evidence to acknowledge habitual theft, so long as the habitive wall repeatedly committed the larceny by means of a judge's free evaluation of evidence is recognized as habitual larceny, it can be recognized as habitual larceny. In this case, the defendant was issued a protective disposition due to pride in the past four times in the past, and the court below's measure recognizing habitual larceny against the defendant is just and there is no illegality in law.

If it is interpreted that the purpose of a protective disposition is the same as the main issue and it cannot be considered as evidence of habitual nature recognition, and that it cannot be considered as evidence of habitual nature recognition, it cannot be interpreted that the purpose of a protective disposition is to prevent balance with other cases, such as cases where the prosecution is suspended due to larceny, and it cannot be interpreted that the provision of Article 30 (4) of the Juvenile Act prohibits the restriction on the use of materials of habitual nature recognition, such as this case.

The dissenting opinions of judges Kim Young-young, Dong Min-gu, Dong Min-ho, Dong Dong-ho, Dong-ho, and Dong-ho are as follows.

상습범에 있어서 상습성의 인정자료는 그 제한이 없이 재판관의 자유심증에 의하여 인정할 수 있다함은 위 판시와 같으나, 상습절도죄에 있어서, 상습성은 상습절도죄의 구성요건으로써 명백한 증거에 의하여 인정되어야 할 것이므로 본건에 있어서 피고인의 판시범행은 "풀륫"이라는 악기 1개를 절취하였다는 것이고, 이 절도행위가 상습절도임을 인정하려면 이 범행 이전에 절도행위를 한 사실이 증거에 의하여 인정되어야 할 것이며 피고인이 4차에 긍하여 절도행위로 인한 보호처분을 받은 사실이 있으므로 이를 상습성인 정의증거자료로 해야할 것인데 소년법은 그 제30조 4항 에 "소년의 보호처분은 그 소년의 장래 신상에 어떠한 영향도 미치지 아니한다"는 규정을 두고 있는바, 소년법 제정의 목적이 반사회성있는 소년에 대하여 그 환경을 조정하고 성행을 교정하기 위한 특별조치를 하여 소년의 건전한 육성을 기함에 있음( 제1조 )을 고려할 때, 이 규정의 취지는 보호처분을 받은 사실은 그 소년의 장래신상에 이롭지 못한 일체의 자료로 할 수 없음을 규정한 것이라고 해석함이 타당할 것이며 또 이 규정은 소년을 보호하고자 하는 특별법인 소년법의 규정으로써 일반 형사법이론에 우선하여 적용하여야 할것이므로, 다른 경우와의 비교균형을 논할 것 없이 본건의 경우 피고인의 보호처분 받은 사실을 상습성 인정의 자료로 할 수 없다고 해석함이 타당할 것인바, 원심은 이와 반대의 견해로 해석하여 보호처분 받은 사실이 피고인에 대하여 상습절도라는 낙인을 찍는 증거로 등장한 결과가 되어 장래 신상에 어떠한 영향도 미치지 아니한다는 위 소년법의 규정에 정면으로 위배한 위법이 있다고 아니할 수 없으므로 원심판결은 파기되어야 할 것으로 사료한다.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, except for Kim Young-young, Dong Dong-gu, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Dong-dong.

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)