Whether larceny and stolen crimes are the same or similar crimes as provided in Article 5 of the Social Protection Act.

The crime of larceny and stolen cannot be deemed as a crime of the same or similar kind as provided in Article 5 of the Social Protection Act unless it is acknowledged that the reason under Article 6(2)6 of the Social Protection Act, such as the nature of the crime in question, the means and method of the crime, the tendency of the crime and the type of the crime, is combined with that under Article.

Article 5 and Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Jin-Hyeat

Gwangju High Court Decision 84No453,84No58 delivered on November 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The crime of larceny and stolen cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act, unless it is acknowledged that the crime of larceny and stolen is the crime of the crime in question, the means and method of the crime, the tendency of the crime, and the type of the crime, etc. of the crime, unless it is recognized that the crime of the crime in question is identical or similar to that of the same or similar crime under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act, which is provided in Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act. The mere fact that the person who requested the purchase and sale and custody of the stolen property in this case for seven times or more is included in the crime of larceny, and the crime of the stolen property in this case cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of the same or similar nature solely on the basis that the crime of habitual larceny and the crime of the stolen property in this case committed by the person who requested the consideration of the record is not recognized.

In the same purport, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the claim for protective custody against the requester for protective custody, and it is not reasonable to interpret the legal principles as to the same or similar crime.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)