Where 50 years of age or older in an appellate trial, the period of protective custody

Although the age was registered as the family register injury 1943 May 7, 194, the actual age was recognized as the birth on November 12, 1936 and when considering the age of the defendant's statement and each written judgment, if it is apparent that the age exceeded 50 years of age, it should be sentenced to 7 years of protective custody in accordance with the proviso of Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law No. 814, Dec. 1, 1982; Law No. 8282, Feb. 23, 1982; Law No. 721, Jul. 21, 199

Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Government's branch court of Seoul District Court (86 Gohap134, 86 U.S.C. 5)

Of the judgment below, the part of protective custody case shall be reversed.

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

The defendant's appeal against the criminal defendant is dismissed.

120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the principal sentence of the original judgment.

The gist of the defendant's appeal Nos. 1 is as follows: (a) the victim requested the defendant to find out whether free boarding passes are necessary; and (b) the defendant was given a 30,000 won order for use for transportation, and the defendant was found guilty without deceiving the victim; and (c) the court below found the defendant guilty and rendered a decision of mistake of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment; (d) the second summary is that the defendant's family register is 43 years old or actual age and 53 years old, and the proviso of Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act should be applied to protective custody and 7 years old; (e) the court below's decision of the court below which sentenced 10 years in protective custody and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment; and (e) the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's public defender and the defendant's public defender in the third and the third points are relatively somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat

However, in full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the grounds for appeal claiming a mistake of facts cannot be accepted, since the facts alleged by the court below are sufficiently recognized.

Next, on the recommendation of unreasonable sentencing in the criminal case of the defendant;

Examining in detail the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of the defendant who was lawfully investigated by the court below, the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is inappropriate, and it is not thought that the above appeal is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Therefore, the above appeal cannot be accepted.

Next, we examine the argument that the proviso of Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act should be applied to the defendant's age of 50 or more years.

According to the statement of the certified copy of the family register against the defendant prepared by the head of Mapo-gu, the defendant was registered in the family register on May 7, 1943, but the defendant was born in Yellow Sea-ri-ri 242, Yellow Sea-ri, but was not registered in the family register, and the above family register was established only upon the permission of the Seoul District Court on January 15, 1963.

On the other hand, according to each copy of the execution ledger, criminal case department, and each judgment of the defendant prepared by the head of the Busan District Court of the Government Archives, the defendant

(1) On September 15, 1956, the Seoul District Criminal Court was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of one year for a short term of six months and is registered as 20 years of age and 11.12 years of age; and

(2) On November 21, 1957, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year under the same crime and the age is 23 years;

(3) On February 22, 1962, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year under the same crime, and the age is 28;

(4) On October 29, 1963, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months under the same crime, and the age at this time is 29 years;

(5) On April 26, 1965, the court was sentenced to a punishment of 10 months for the same crime and, upon being sentenced to a punishment, the age of 21 years and 13 November 194;

(6) On April 27, 1967, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months under the same crime and recognized the facts recorded as 31 years of age.

Although it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's age and the age stated in the above judgment are the true age of the defendant because they are recorded in the family register, it is clear that the defendant's age is not the defendant's 13 years old since it is apparent that the defendant's age is 13 years old at the time of the above judgment (in addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant's age is 20 years old), and (2) and (3) at the time of the judgment, the Juvenile Act is applied to the juvenile, and the defendant should be sentenced to a short and long-term illegal punishment, but it is clear that the defendant's age is not the defendant's 13 years old, in full view of the fact that the defendant's family register was established only by the permission of the court on January 15, 1963.

Therefore, considering the defendant's statement and the defendant's age, etc. as stated in each judgment, the defendant's age is relatively reasonable when he was first tried on November 12, 193 (1936). Therefore, the defendant's age is clear that he exceeded 50 years of age and should be placed under the protective custody 7 years pursuant to the proviso of Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, since the defendant's appeal disputing this point is reasonable, the court below's decision should not be reversed without examining the remaining grounds for appeal in the part of protective custody claim.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal against a prosecuted case is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that 120 days out of the number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the original sentence of the court below. Meanwhile, since the defendant's appeal against custody application is justified, Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act are reversed, and the part of the court below's judgment regarding custody application is reversed, and the party member

Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act refer to all of the requirements of custody and custody of the defendant recognized as a member of the party and the summary of the evidence as stated in the relevant column of the judgment below.

According to the facts stated in the law, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment for a crime of fraud at least three times, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a heavier punishment for a total of five years or more, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a heavier punishment for a period of at least seven years again within three years after the execution of the last sentence is completed, and thus, the defendant is subject to 10 years of protective custody pursuant to Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act, or as seen in the above grounds for reversal, 50 years of age when the defendant was under 50 years of age in the case of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is subject

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

Justices Kim J-ho (Presiding Justice)