(a) Criteria for determining the risk of recidivism under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act;

B. Whether the crime of larceny and the crime of acquiring stolen goods is a criminal of the same kind as provided in Article 6(2)6 of the Social Protection Act

A. The risk of re-offending under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a case where the requester is highly probable to do so again in the crime committed in the future. In determining the risk of re-offending in the future, the circumstances such as the age, family relation, occupation, criminal record, recovery of the criminal record, the existence of the previous definition, the time interval with the previous crime, the motive and method of the crime, etc. shall be the standard for determination.

B. As to whether the crime of larceny and the acquisition of stolen goods is identical or similar, it shall be determined in light of Article 6(2)6 of the Social Protection Act in preparation for the specific crime, and as to whether the crime of larceny and the acquisition of stolen goods is identical or similar, it shall be determined without consideration. In preparation for the crime of larceny in this case, it is recognized that the two facts were identical or similar to the crime of larceny in full view of the nature of the crime, the means and methods of the crime, the tendency of the crime, the type of the crime, etc., and thus, the fact of the acquisition of stolen goods is excluded from the criteria for determining the risk

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

Supreme Court Decision 81Do3116,81Gado104 Decided February 23, 1982, 82Do937, 82GaDo176 Decided June 8, 1982

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Shin Shin-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 82No659, 82No704, 82Gano172 Decided June 18, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act, the risk of recidivism as provided for in Article 5(2) means a case where the requester for the above punishment is highly probable, and the circumstances such as the age of the requester for the crime, family relation, occupation, recovery of the criminal records, and the motive and method of the crime committed at intervals of time and time are also the basis for its determination. The court below, on the same opinion, found that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of eight months for special larceny, one year for a long term, one year for habitual larceny and six months for 1974, and the fact that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for the above crime and completed its execution on July 197, 197, and it is not possible to find the defendant guilty of the above crime by considering the following facts: (1) The above crime is not recovered at one time and two times, and the defendant cannot be found to have been engaged in the crime of larceny by considering the motive and consequence of the crime.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the risk of recidivism, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by violating the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)