A. The legality of the grounds of appeal that the period of confinement to protective custody facilities is long and unreasonable (negative)

B. If only a custody case is appealed, a summary of the grounds for appeal concerning the violation of the rules of evidence as to the recognition of the criminal facts of the defendant case (negative)

A. According to Article 20(1) of the Social Protection Act, when the court recognizes that a protective custody claim is well-grounded, it shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground that the court issues a protective custody order as a judgment, and that the period of confinement in a protective custody facility shall not exceed seven years, and that the period of confinement is not specified in the judgment, but is unreasonable.

B. In a case where a person who filed an appeal to the appellate court only files an appeal to the part concerning custody cases in the judgment of the appellate court, and waives the appeal to the part concerning a prosecuted case, the appellate court’s judgment which found the defendant guilty shall not be deemed as the grounds for appeal as to custody cases on the grounds that the facts charged constitute an error of

Articles 7, 20(1), and 20(7) of the Social Protection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Do219 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990,831). Supreme Court Decision 89Do205 delivered on February 9, 1990 (Gong1990,693 delivered on June 8, 1990)

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney 000

Gwangju High Court Decision 90No30,90No1 delivered on April 6, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the grounds of appeal by the requester for custody

In accordance with Article 20(1) of the Social Protection Act, when the court recognizes that a protective custody claim is well-grounded, it shall sentence a protective custody to the court as a judgment, and the period of confinement in a protective custody facility shall not exceed seven years, and it shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground that the period of confinement is not specified in the judgment and the period of confinement is not longer unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do219, Feb. 27, 1990). Therefore, the argument is groundless.

As to the grounds of appeal by state appointed defense counsel

As in the instant case, the applicant for a warrant of custody shall file an appeal only for the part of the custody case in the appellate court's judgment, and where he waives the appeal as to the part of the Defendant's case, the appellate court's judgment which found the Defendant guilty cannot be deemed as the ground for appeal as to the custody case on the ground that there is an error of rules of evidence or a serious trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do205, Feb. 9, 190). As to the custody case, there is no error of law in the incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of the court's fact-finding, and the court's decision which recognized

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)