The examples of compulsory debt collection provided that the act does not meet the requirement for self-help under Article 23 of the Criminal Act

In the event that the victim was unable to receive the price for delivery of tin from the victim and escaped, and the defendant opened the bruter who prepared the bruc in advance the bruc book closed at night and left the victim's goods out of the bruc book, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's compulsory debt collection or disposal of goods for this purpose is a self-help act as stipulated in Article 23 of the Criminal Act.

Article 23 of the Criminal Act

Defendant and Appellant for Saryary Employment

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Lee In-bok

Daegu High Court Decision 84No1148No211 delivered on October 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment concerned.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for custody and defense counsel are examined.

1. The issue is that the defendant and the respondent for protection (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") did not receive several requests for payment from the victim for the payment of the price which was supplied tiny to the Heather, which was the victim, and the victim had escaped. Thus, the defendant's act was committed for the purpose of preserving the above claim as security. Thus, even if the act constitutes the act of self-help or even if not, the defendant's act constitutes the act of larceny under the Criminal Act, which means that the act of self-help under the Criminal Act means an act to avoid impossibility or significant difficulty in execution of the claim if it is impossible to preserve the claim by legal procedure. According to the criminal facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the defendant delivered 1.60,00 won tiny to the victim, but the fact that the defendant escaped after the delivery of the price was closed and escaped. The defendant was removed from the Meat's name which was closed at night. Thus, the defendant's act of larceny cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of larceny or a thief's act of larceny under the above legal principles.

2. The Social Protection Act was enacted for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation by imposing a protective disposition on a criminal who is deemed to have a risk of re-offending, and requires special education improvement, but it is clear in comparison with the case of Article 5(1) of the same Act that the protective custody does not require the risk of re-offending. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of re-offending, such as the theory of re-offending, on the ground that the lower court did not decide otherwise on the existence of the risk of re-offending.

3. Since the period of protective custody is stipulated in law, there is no discretion to newly establish the period in the court, and the grounds for unfair sentencing cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal in the instant case. Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be applied to the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)