Whether a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, including an expression of aggressive attitude against a person, constitutes "a crime of the same kind or a similar crime" under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act (affirmative)

If the contents of the prior conviction and the damage of property by taking advantage of violence are expressed to the victim's aggressive attitude against the victim, it shall be deemed to be a crime of the same kind or a similar crime in comparison with the nature of the crime, the means, tendency of the crime, the type of crime, and the reasons under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act, such as the nature of the crime.

Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1016, 82GaDo193 Decided June 8, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Do403 Decided October 12, 1982

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 82No676,82No180 decided July 1, 1982

The part of the judgment below regarding custody claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. The summary of the facts of the cause of the request for the custody of the person subject to detention is as follows. In other words, the person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Daejeon District Court on September 12, 1974 and one year and eight months at the same court on August 26, 197 for the same crime in the same court and completed the execution of each sentence for the same crime. In other words, the person who was habitually sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months at the same court on October 26, 1978. From June 5, 1981 to September 2 of the same year, the person who was subject to detention showed his attitude of threatening the victim or loan in the main points or branch of business management, such as the victim 1, 2, and 3, etc., and took advantage of his attitude as a knife and took advantage of the benefit equivalent to the amount of filial duty, and committed assault and bodily injury.

However, the court below rejected the request for protective custody based on the following reasoning: (a) the previous conviction of (1) and the previous conviction of (3) of the above violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act were the crimes by assault; (b) the previous conviction of (c) is the crimes by assault and damage of property; (c) it is difficult to view that the criminal offense of this case and the crime of this case, the means and method of such crime, tendency, types of crime, etc. are classified as the same or similar crimes; and (c) the use of the assault of the above (1) and (3) does not exceed 3 years in total; and therefore, (c) the period of punishment for which the requester for protective custody received is not less

2. However, according to a certified copy of the judgment (No. 100 to 102 of the investigation record) bound in the records, the previous records of the damage to property in the above (2) are as follows: (a) the person who filed a petition for the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement of the settlement.

3. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act, and there is a ground to discuss this issue. Therefore, the part of the judgment below concerning custody claim is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)