A. Whether protective custody disposition violates the principle of res judicata under Article 12(1) of the Constitution

B. Court's discretion on protective custody disposition

A. It cannot be said that the principle of res judicata under Article 12(1) of the Constitution is not violated on the ground that a person subject to a sentence having an ecological or damp risk of repeating the same or similar crime is punished concurrently by a protective disposition as a measure for crime prevention and edification in the future, separate from the punishment.

B. To the extent that the requirements for care and custody are met, the court must take a protective custody disposition as necessary, and there is no room for discretion.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 12(1) of the Constitution

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2511, 85Do372 Decided January 28, 1986, 85Do969, 85Do128 Decided July 28, 1986

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Dongyang General Law Firm, Attorneys Cho Hun-min and Park Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 86No345 delivered on February 4, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

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

In addition, a protective disposition, which is a protective disposition as a measure for crime prevention and edification in the future, shall not be deemed to violate the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy as stipulated in Article 12(1) of the Constitution, separately from the punishment, against a person who is in danger of repeating a crime of the same or similar kind ecologically or habitally, and as long as the person meets the requirements for protective custody, the court must take protective disposition as necessary, and there is no room for discretion, and therefore, the arguments different from

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

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)