beta
Main Issues
Review and determination of the risk of recidivism for a protective custody subject under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act
Summary of Judgment
Since a person subject to protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act is presumed to be a legal presumption of the risk of recidivism, it is not necessary to examine and determine whether the risk of recidivism exists separately.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 84Do2471, 84Do377 Decided December 26, 1984
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defense Counsel
Attorney Park Young-chul
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 85No1901, 85No242 Decided October 2, 1985
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.
Reasons
1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel.
The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is an unlawful crime, without examining the risk of recidivism by the defendant and the requester for protective custody, and maintaining the first instance judgment in the seven-year protective custody without examining the risk of recidivism.
However, since a person subject to protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act is presumed to be in danger of re-offending, it is not necessary to separately examine and determine the risk of re-offending. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is legally confirmed that the person subject to protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act falls under the person subject to protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act, but the person is 7 years of age for whom 50 years of age or older, and therefore, it
2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the requester for custody.
The substance of the grounds of appeal is that only one letter is used, or it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and fifty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)