Necessary protective custody period for persons aged 50 or older;

The court below held that the facts of the requirements for care and custody against the defendant fall under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and therefore, the defendant is punished by a protective custody for 10 years. According to the proviso of Article 5 (1) of the same Act, if the person eligible for protection is 50 or more years of age, the defendant shall be punished by a protective custody for 7 years. The defendant is a student on September 28, 1925 and the records clearly indicate that he is 50 or more years of age at the time of the sentence of

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Musan Branch (81 Gohap211, 81 High Court Decision 47)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

A person who is subject to protective custody shall be punished by seven years.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant, and the defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, and it is unfair that the court below is faced with 10 years of protective custody.

According to the court below's decision, since the facts of the requirements for care and custody against the defendant fall under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the court below's judgment shall be deemed to correspond to 10 years of protective custody. According to the proviso of Article 5 (1) of the same Act, if the person eligible for protection is 50 or more years of age, the person shall be punished by a protective custody for 7 years. The defendant is a birth on September 28, 1925 and the defendant is 50 or more years of age at the time of the court below's decision. Thus, the court below erred in applying the law and affected the judgment, and therefore, the court below'

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment shall be rendered again as follows.

The relationship between the facts of facts and the requirements of care and custody recognized by a member and the evidence is the same as that of the court below, and this is citing it as it is.

In light of the law, the court below held that the defendant's judgment constitutes Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 330 of the Criminal Act. The defendant's judgment in the court below is subject to the choice of a limited term of imprisonment. The defendant's judgment in the first head of the court below's judgment is a repeated offender within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act. The defendant's age is 56 years, and the defendant's age is 56 years, and there are reasonable grounds for taking into account the circumstances such as the defendant's mistake in depth after the crime was committed. Thus, the defendant's imprisonment within the limited term of imprisonment with prison labor under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be included within 2 years, and the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor shall be included in the above sentence of 10 days, and the defendant's petition for detention shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for at least three times, such as habitual head and theft, etc., which was executed within 15 years after the last 198 years.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)