1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 11, 2003, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and protective custody for the following reasons: (a) violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Robbery); (b) violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.); and (c) violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Rape, etc.).

The plaintiff appealed against this and appealed from Gwangju High Court 2003No292 and 2003No10, Jun. 12, 2003, but the dismissal judgment was pronounced on June 12, 2003. The plaintiff appealed from the Supreme Court 2003Do3644 and 2003Do46, but the above judgment became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the appeal on October 24, 2003.

B. On November 26, 2012, after the term of imprisonment under the above judgment has expired, the Plaintiff is in the enforcement of protective custody up to the date in B.

C. The Social Protection Act, which provides for protective custody, was repealed by Act No. 7656 on August 4, 2005.

However, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above repealed Act (No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005, 2005, hereinafter “instant supplementary provision”), the effect of the judgment on protective custody already finalized has been maintained, and the former Social Protection Act shall apply to the execution of protective custody based on the final judgment.

However, the above supplementary provision requires the defendant to exercise the authority of the Social Protection Committee on the management and enforcement of protective custody.

The Defendant examined whether the Plaintiff was provisionally released pursuant to Article 25 of the former Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter “former Social Protection Act”). However, on April 21, 2014, the Defendant decided not to grant provisional release from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s previous conviction, delinquency, and the risk of recidivism is recognized. A prison officer, who belongs to B, notified the Plaintiff of the said decision.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The ground for recognition is a dispute.