Whether it violates the protective disposition and the principle of no law in consideration of the previous conviction before the enforcement of the Social Protection Act.

A. An applicant for protective custody is subject to protective custody disposition under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act, as long as the person committed an offense corresponding to a crime of the same kind or a similar crime in the latter part of the Act even if the record of the applicant for protective custody who was sentenced three or more times for the same or a similar crime under the former part of Article 5(1)1 of the same Act was committed before the enforcement of the Act.

B. The Social Protection Act is against the principle of no punishment without the law, or cannot be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution that provides for the principle of no punishment without the law.

Article 1 and Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2897, 81Do88 Decided February 9, 1982, 83Do2477, 83Do426 Decided October 25, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 84Do131, 84Do18 Decided March 27, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1626, 86Do195 Decided October 28, 1986

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Lee E-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 86No231 delivered on November 21, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the requester for defense and his defense counsel,

Even if the record of the respondent who was sentenced three or more times for the same or a similar crime under the former part of Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act committed the crime of this case corresponding to the same or similar crime of the latter part after the enforcement of the above Act, the respondent for the protective custody shall be subject to the protective custody disposition under the above Act, and the above Act shall not be deemed to be in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law or to be in violation of the constitutional provision under the principle of no punishment without the law. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)