Scope of the same or similar crimes under Article 6(2) of the Social Protection Act

The embezzlement and larceny are not the same or similar crimes as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act.

Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Southern Branch Court (81 High Court Decision 408, 81 High Court Decision 53)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

A seized pents pentsa pentsa (No. 1) shall be returned to the victim non-indicted 1.

The claim for protective custody in this case is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal by the defendant and the requester for identification;

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: first, the defendant and the respondent for the defendant's appeal did not theft the Kameras in this case, but merely borrowed 130,000 won from the non-indicted 2 by making a small return of the above Kameras immediately after borrowing the above Kameras from the victim, and also borrowed 130,000 won from the non-indicted 2, but the court below's disposition which found the defendant and the respondent for the Kameras guilty committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and second, the court's sentencing and protective disposition against the defendant and the respondent for the Kameras are too inappropriate.

2. Determination on the appeal against the accused case

First of all, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, there is no ground for appeal claiming mistake of facts since the facts charged against the defendant in this case can be recognized.

Pursuant to each of the following statements on the assertion of unfair sentencing, prior to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year with prison labor for the same crime at the Seoul District Criminal Court on May 30, 197, and one year from the same court on August 26, 197 to one year, and one year from the same court on August 26, 197 to one year from September 15, 1966, to eight months from imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, from the Incheon District Court’s Incheon Branch on September 14, 1967 to other court on September 24, 1967, to eight months from imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime from the same branch on March 21, 1969, and to one year from the same court on August 26, 197 to one year from the same court on September 26, 197, and the judgment of the court below on September 7, 197 to the effect that Article 5 of the Criminal Act did not apply to the above case.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendant admitted as a member of the party is as follows: on May 7, 1978, the summary of the evidence is as follows: (a) except for addition of the "written statement of the previous conviction and reply prepared by the head of Young-gu Detention House" to the summary of the evidence, and therefore, it is identical to that of the original judgment.

The so-called "the judgment of the defendant" falls under Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant selects a prison term during the prescribed period of punishment, and the defendant commits the crime of this case because of the previous conviction in the judgment of the defendant, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment that a repeated crime is committed pursuant to Article 35 (2) of the same Act, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within one year and six months. Article 57 of the same Act includes 150 days out of the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment below, and the seized Ambridge Camera (Evidence No. 1) is the stolen goods acquired by the crime of this case and the reason for return to the victim is clear, such act shall be returned to the victim non-indicted 1 pursuant to

3. Determination on appeal for a protective custody claim

B. Before determining the appeal of the requester for protective custody that the period of protective custody is long, the court below ex officio examined the requester for protective custody, and the court below recognized the defendant for five times of larceny as recognized in the preceding paragraph and applied Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act to apply Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act to the protection of custody for the reason that the defendant for protective custody was at risk of recidivism by committing the crime of embezzlement again for three years or more. Thus, the crime of embezzlement of the requester for protective custody and the five times of larceny recognized above shall not be deemed as the same or similar crime even in accordance with Article 6 (2) 6 (6) of the Social Protection Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, despite the fact that the above five times of larceny does not constitute the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment below by misapprehending the law on the requirements for protective custody disposition.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below's case of protective custody is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of this case's claim for protective custody is that the requester for protective custody was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for larceny more than two years and the person whose total term of punishment is more than three years is more than three years and is in danger of recidivism and recidivism. However, as stated in the reasoning of the above reversal, five times of larceny of the requester for protective custody and the crime of embezzlement of this case cannot be deemed as the same or similar crime, and therefore, the claim for protective custody of this case against the requester for protective custody is groundless pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Social Protection Act.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)