Whether a person whose period of actual reinstatement is less than three years due to the period of parole falls under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act (affirmative)

The term "person whose total term of punishment is at least three years" under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act refers to a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years. Thus, if the person who filed an application for reduction of punishment three times and the total term of imprisonment is at least three years, the person who received benefits from parole during the period and actually received benefits from parole falls short of three years, the person who filed an application for reduction of punishment falls under "a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years" under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act.

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do476 delivered on November 9, 1982

Appellant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Ycheon-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 82No1807,82No432 delivered on February 9, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel

Examining the facts and records that the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, we affirm the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance that there is a risk of re-offending by the requester for a warrant of re-offending, and there is no doubt that there is a misunderstanding of fact-finding as to the risk of re-offending, such as the theory of lawsuit, and

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the requester for custody

A person whose total term of punishment is not less than three years under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act refers to a person whose total term of punishment is not less than three years, as determined by the first instance court, so long as the sum of the term of imprisonment imposed on three occasions by a person who filed an appeal for reduction of punishment is more than three years, as determined by the first instance court, even if the period of imprisonment imposed on three occasions is less than three years, the applicant for reduction of punishment constitutes a person whose total term of punishment under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act is not less than three years, even though the applicant for reduction of punishment has actually received benefits from parole during the said period of three years. Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed as an unlawful act because the court below did not examine whether the period of punishment actually served is less than three years, and the court below did not have a presence of a public defender at the trial date of the court below, it is clear that the applicant for reduction of punishment is an

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)