Article 5 of the Social Protection Act(hereinafter "Social Protection Act")

The "risk of re-offending" under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act means that there is a lack of possibility of re-offending, and there is a considerable probability that a person subject to protection may de facto injure the legal peace by committing a crime again in the future. The criteria for judgment shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the age, character, family relation, educational degree, occupation and environment of the person subject to protection, conduct prior to the crime, motive, means, circumstances after the crime, re-offending, etc., and it cannot be said that there is a danger of re-offending because the crime in question is conducted with habitual habits.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do156 Decided September 9, 1986

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Lee Jae-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 88No330,88No278 Decided May 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The risk of re-offending under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act requires a sufficient possibility of re-offending, and there should be a considerable probability that a person subject to protection may injure the legal peace by committing a crime again in the future. The judgment criteria should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the age, character, family relation, educational degree, occupation and environment of the person subject to protection, conduct prior to the crime, motive, means, means, circumstances after the crime, opening circumstances, etc. of the crime. Further, the crime in question cannot be deemed to have a danger of re-offending due to habitual habition (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do156 delivered on September 9, 1986). Thus, the judgment of the court below that there is no danger of re-offending in consideration of the various circumstances described in the reasoning of the judgment below in this case, is proper and there is no violation of law such as the theory of the lawsuit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)