beta
Main Issues
The discretion of the court on the protective custody period under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act
Summary of Judgment
When the act of the requester for protective custody satisfies the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the court shall place the requester under protective custody for a fixed period of time, and there is no discretion to exempt, increase or decrease the protective custody.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 82Do1280, 82Gado250 Decided July 13, 1982
Applicant for Custody
Applicant for Custody
upper and high-ranking persons
Applicant for Custody
Defense Counsel
Attorney Lee In-hee
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 82No2844, 82No786 Decided December 17, 1982
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the respondent and defense counsel are examined.
Examining the evidence in comparison with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the judgment on the risk of re-offending in the judgment of the court below, inasmuch as the act of the respondent for the protective custody falls under the protective custody requirement under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and the measure of protective custody for seven years is justified and the reasoning of the judgment is the same. In addition, as long as the protective custody requirement is recognized, the court must protect the protective custody for a fixed period, and there is no discretion to exempt or increase the protective custody, and therefore, it is not allowed under the Social Protection Act, which states that the protective custody disposition in
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)