Whether protective custody disposition violates the principle against double Jeopardy (negative)

A protective custody disposition is a protective custody or inspection disposition with the aim of promoting rehabilitation and protecting society for those who have committed a crime and are in danger of repeating a crime and in need of special education, improvement and treatment, and it cannot be viewed as the same as a punishment. Therefore, it does not violate the Constitution that the protective disposition in this case is not repeatedly punished for the same crime

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 12 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3318,83Do58 Decided August 28, 1984

Defendant-Appellant 1 et al.

Defendants and Appellants for Custody

Attorney Park Ho-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 84No861, 84No155 Decided June 22, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in each original sentence by 40 days.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by a state appointed defense counsel of the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the defendant)

Even if the Social Protection Act provides that a certain criminal shall be subject to protective custody in addition to punishment for such crime, according to the prescribed conditions, a protective custody disposition shall be deemed to violate the constitutional provision that the protective custody in this case shall not be repeatedly punished for the same crime, since it is a protective custody or inspection disposition with the aim of promoting rehabilitation and protecting society for those who have committed a crime and require special education, improvement and treatment.

As to the Defendants and the above public defender’s ground of appeal No. 2

According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below, it is reasonable in light of the records to recognize the defendants' criminal facts and facts of custody requirements as stated in its reasoning, and to view the suspect examination of the defendants as to the prosecutor's protocol and the protocol that adopted the statements consistent with the facts as stated in the judgment at the first instance trial of the first instance court of the first instance, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)