Whether Article 5 of the Social Protection Act is unconstitutional or not

Since Article 5 of the Social Protection Act specifies the facts that constitute the requirements for protective custody disposition and the period of protective custody, which is the relevant sanctions, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without the law, and it does not violate Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Articles 10, 11, and 12(1) of the Constitution

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Yellow-gu et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 87No1228, 87No169 delivered on October 14, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The ten days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense and the state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

Since Article 5 of the Social Protection Act specifies the facts that constitute the requirements for protective custody disposition and the period of protective custody, which is the relevant sanctions, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without the law, and it does not violate Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.

The period of protective custody is statutory, and there is no room for court to mitigate it at its discretion, and in this case where one year and six months of imprisonment is sentenced, the grounds for unfair sentencing are not legitimate grounds for appeal.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)