Whether the grounds for appeal can be the grounds for appeal for a mistake of facts against a case involving custody only.

The grounds of appeal concerning custody cases shall not be deemed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the appellate court's judgment which found the applicant to be guilty of the facts charged, where the applicant for custody files an appeal only against the custody case in the appellate court's judgment and the accused case waives the appeal.

Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do185 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988,375) 89Do144 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong1990,67) 89Do205 delivered on February 9, 1990 (Gong190,693)

Appellant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Yong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 93No1504, 93No74 delivered on July 20, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Determination on each ground of appeal No. 1 by the requester for custody

In a case where a person subject to the review of custody files an appeal only against the part concerning the protective custody case in the appellate judgment, and waives the appeal against the part concerning the prosecuted case, the appellate judgment that found the person subject to the review of custody guilty of the facts charged with violating the rules of evidence, cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal as to the protective custody case, on the grounds that it erred by the rules of evidence,

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by a public defender

Since Article 5 of the Social Protection Act does not violate Article 11, Article 12, or Article 13 of the Constitution, it shall not be accepted.

3. Determination of the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the requester for defense and the state appointed defense counsel

If the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the risk of re-offending, without making a proper deliberation as to the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the risk of re-offending as a person subject to protection, and therefore, there is no reason to

4. Determination as to the third ground for appeal by the requester for custody.

It is evident that there is no reason to discuss the purport that the protective custody subject is excessive to protective custody, because the protective custody subject falls under the requirements of each subparagraph of Article 5 of the Social Protection Act and the court should face the risk of recidivism.

5. Therefore, all appeals filed by the requester for the retrial are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)