The meaning of " several criminal facts" under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

Several criminal facts under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act mean at least cases where these criminal facts are evaluated as several in a natural and social sense. Therefore, when the same motive is used in the same time and place, the act of assault and damaging property is considered formally, but it does not constitute two criminal facts.

Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2000Mo178, 81Gais22)

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred forty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the penalty.

The prosecutor's appeal on custody cases shall be dismissed.

1. Regarding the appeal of the prosecutor about the custody case, the gist of the appeal is that the person who is habitually recognized due to several criminal facts stipulated in Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act refers to the case where the criminal facts of the same crime are recognized as habitually crimes as a result of multiple individual crimes without asking whether or not the same criminal facts are identical or similar to them, and if the criminal facts of the case are satisfied individually, the court below's decision that the defendant's criminal facts of the same crime of the same crime of this case can be seen as satisfying the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act if there is danger of recidivism. Thus, considering the above facts of the defendant's criminal facts of this case's crime of this case's violation of Article 5 (2) 2 of the same Act's Article 6 of the same Act's Article 6 of the same Act's Article 5 (2) of the same Act's Article 6 of the same Act's Article 6 of the same Act's 2 of the same Act's of this case's penal punishment can not be recognized as the same crime of this case's punishment of this case's.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor concerning the following accused case is too unfasible and unfair. Before determining the grounds for appeal, the court below ex officio examined the defendant, and according to the court below's decision, the prosecutor's indictment for the crime of violation of Articles 2 (1), 260 (1), and 366 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act cannot be recognized as habitually as a crime of simple assault and damage. However, according to the defendant's statement in the court below and the records of investigation data card with the defendant prepared by the third head of the Public Security Headquarters, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot be found as having been sentenced to a fine of 10,00 won for the same violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and the injury to violence, etc. on June 17, 1971, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot be found as having been sentenced to a prison sentence of 10,000 won for 10,000 won and 10,000 won for 1,00.

Therefore, under Article 364, Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case shall be reversed, and it shall be decided again by the party

On June 18, 1968, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 10,00 won for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and a crime of bodily injury caused by violence at the government branch of the Seoul District Court. On June 17, 1971, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for two years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by the same court on June 17, 1971, and a fine of 50,000 won for the same crime from the Suwon Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court on December 7, 1976, and on January 31, 1980, for the same crime and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

1. At around 13:00 on July 31, 1981, in a habitual manner, Nonindicted Party 1’s (trade name omitted) restaurant in front of the Gu funeral area in which the former passenger was located and paid an amount of KRW 1,000 to drink 20 won at the same restaurant, but Nonindicted Party 1 refused to pay the amount of money to cover a large amount of KRW 800 won due to a large amount of credit. When Nonindicted Party 1 refused to do so, he committed an act of assaulting the breath to the ground by breaking the breath of the breath, and booming the breath of the breath’s breath, which was placed on the ground, by destroying the 3-market price at which he was placed on the breath,500 won, thereby impairing its utility;

2. On August 1, 1981, around 14:00, there is no intention to pay a charge to Nonindicted 2 (25) taxi drivers in the Jeonnam-gu (vehicle number omitted) taxi belonging to the former Military Service in front of the former Military Service Area (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Military Service Area”) and, in spite of the absence of an intention to pay the fee, the franchis are the same as the franchis are living together with the franchis and return to the franchis and return to the franchis and thereafter,

The remainder of the facts in the ruling, except habitual, shall not be

1. Statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of Nonindicted Party 1 by Nonindicted Party 1

1. Statements consistent with the part of the judgment of the defendant in the first trial records of the court below;

1. The statement in the third trial record of the court below that corresponds to the facts of the non-indicted 1's decision

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant and non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the facts of the judgment

1. Each statement made by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 2, which conforms to the facts in the judgment, among the written statements

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts in the judgment among the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 in the preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers

1. Statement consistent with the facts of the previous convictions in the investigation data card prepared by the third chief of the Public Security Headquarters;

1. Statement consistent with the previous convictions in the judgment of the head of the Gwangju Correctional Institution; and

Comprehensively taking account of the facts of the Defendant’s previous conviction of violence, etc. and the Defendant was released from the court, and the Defendant was recognized by Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the court of first instance, and it can be recognized by considering the facts of the judgment. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove the facts of the judgment.

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the same Act is applicable to the so-called 1-called 'the judgment of the defendant, who is not a prosecutor,'s order for prosecution by applying Article 351 of the Criminal Act. However, according to the above investigation data card, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 10,000 won for fraud on July 9, 1974, and it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud of this case is habitually committed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the habitualness of the judgment). Since the latter part of the judgment, a repeated crime is committed pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(1) of the same Act, Article 347(2) of the same Act, the so-called 'the so-called 'the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act' shall be punished within the scope of Article 48(2) of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) will new politics