A. Criteria for determining whether the risk of recidivism under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act exists

(b) The case holding that there is no risk of reoffending;

A. In determining the risk of re-offending under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act, the circumstances such as the age, character, family relation, occupation, property level, previous conviction, and the situation that constitute a protective custody requirement, such as the motive and means of the crime, and the interval between the previous crimes should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances.

(b) The case holding that there is no risk of reoffending;

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Appellant for Custody

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 87No501, 87No69 decided July 2, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining the risk of re-offending under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act, the circumstances such as the age, character, family relation, occupation, property level, previous conviction, previous conviction, and previous conviction, and all of the criminal facts subject to protective custody, namely, the motive and means of the crime, and the interval between the previous crimes, should be considered in an objective determination.

Although the petitioner for the so-called 'defensive treatment' has been several previous convictions of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., the petitioner for the so-called 'defescing treatment' has never been sentenced to imprisonment again and the victim did not have any other crime again after being released from the prison. From May 1978 to December 30 of the same year, the petitioner for the so-called 'defescing treatment' has continued to use the so-called 'defescing treatment device' as a candidate for the so-called 'defescing treatment device'. The petitioner for the so-called 'defescing treatment device' has been unable to use the 'defescing treatment device' for the so-called 'defescing treatment device'. The petitioner for the so-called 'defescing treatment device' has been unfescing with any other 'defescing treatment device'. The petitioner for the so-called 'defescing treatment machine.

In light of the records, the court below did not err by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the risk of recidivism.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)