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 December 3, 2004, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years and protective custody by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2004Da311, 2004Gano122 (combined)), and appealed on December 6, 2004, but the above appeal was dismissed on January 28, 2005 (Seoul High Court 2004No311, 2004No122 (combined)), and on January 31, 2005, the appeal was withdrawn on February 4, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. The Plaintiff completed the execution of imprisonment in accordance with the instant judgment and is subject to the execution of protective custody in the three prisons from July 6, 2010 to the North Korean Peninsula.

C. The Social Protection Act, which provides for protective custody, was repealed by Act No. 7656 on August 4, 2005.

However, according to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above repealed Act (No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005, 2005, hereinafter “the Addenda provision”), the effect of a protective custody judgment already finalized prior to the enforcement of the above Act is maintained, and the enforcement of protective custody based on the final judgment shall be governed by the previous Social Protection Act.

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 June 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the Plaintiff’s provisional release on the ground that “the risk of recidivism is recognized in light of the Plaintiff’s previous conviction, the facts of misconduct, the custody center, etc.”

(B) Evidence Nos. 4, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 protective custody system and the supplementary provision of this case are unconstitutional.