(a) Meaning of “a person whose total period of punishment is not less than five years” and whether the period of parole is included in Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act;

B. Whether the crime of larceny and robbery is similar to that of the same kind

A. Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act refers to a person whose total term of punishment is not less than five years" means a person whose total term of punishment is not less than five years, so long as the petitioner for the warrant of custody has been sentenced three times and the total term of imprisonment is not less than five years, even if the petitioner for the warrant of custody has actually served less than five years since the date of parole during the period of the period of parole, it constitutes a case where the petitioner for the warrant of custody has actually served less than five years

B. The crime of larceny and robbery and robbery are crimes under Article 6(1)2 of the Social Protection Act, which are the same or similar crimes as provided in Article 5 of the same Act, as those stipulated in the same chapter of the Criminal Code.

(a) Article 5(1)1(b) of the Social Protection Act; Articles 5 and 6(2)1 of the Social Protection Act; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do113 delivered on June 28, 1983, 85Do377 delivered on February 25, 1986

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Sung-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 87No372,87No40 decided March 10, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for thirty days.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the requester for custody

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, the judgment of the court below that recognized the risk of re-offending by the requester for re-offending is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 2 of the requester for protective custody and the ground of appeal No. 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act, the term of punishment referred to in the former part of Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act refers to a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for at least five years, and the term "a person whose total term of punishment is at least five years" referred to in Article 5(1)1 of the same Act refers to a person whose total term of punishment is at least five years. Thus, as determined by the first instance court, if the total term of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on three occasions by the requester for protective custody is at least five years, even if the period of punishment actually served is less than five years, the requester for protective custody constitutes a person whose total term of punishment is at least five years as stated in Article 5(1)1 of the same Act, and therefore, the court below's judgment is justified in finding the pertinent facts of protective custody or erroneous in its misapprehension of legal principles.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 by a state appointed defense counsel

The same purport of the judgment below is that the crime of larceny and robbery in the instant case constitutes a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, which is stipulated in the same chapter of the Criminal Code under Article 6 (2) 2 of the same Act, is a crime of the same or similar crime under Article 6 (2) 2 of the same Act. The judgment below is just and the statutory period of custody cannot be mitigated at the court's discretion unless the statutory requirements under the Social Protection Act are acknowledged. However, as pointed out, the social protection law cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 26 of the Constitution stipulating the right to a trial of the people under the Constitution.

4. The defendant filed an appeal against a criminal defendant case, but the defendant did not pay the grounds of appeal, and thus must dismiss it by decision. However, in this case where an appeal is filed against a protective custody disposition, the defendant's appeal against the defendant and the requester for protective custody is without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal against the defendant and the requester for protective custody are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)