beta
Main Issues
"Risk of recidivism" under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act and the criteria for the determination thereof.
Summary of Judgment
The risk of recidivism as a protective custody requirement under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act requires a lack of possibility of recidivism only with the possibility of recidivism, and the judgment criteria should be determined strictly by taking into account various circumstances such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, means and method of crime, motive and circumstances of the applicant for a retrial, and existence of similar criminal records.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 of Social Protection Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 83Do385 delivered on September 27, 1983
Applicant for Custody
Applicant for Custody
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu High Court Decision 83No388 delivered on February 3, 1984
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.
The risk of recidivism as a protective custody requirement under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act requires a lack of possibility of recidivism only with the possibility of recidivism, and it is highly probable to repeat the crime. The judgment criteria are to be strictly determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, motive, means, method and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, existence of a similar criminal record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do385, Sept. 27, 1983). The original court maintains the first instance court's measure that judged that there is no evidence to determine the risk of recidivism against the requester under protective custody, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the criminal record of the requester under protective custody, the motive and circumstance of the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)