Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act provides that the risk of recidivism shall be proved.

Unlike the case of protective custody under Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act, unlike the case of paragraph (2) of the same Article, it is not necessary to separately prove the risk of recidivism because it is legally deemed to have the risk of recidivism if it satisfies the previous record of appeal and the requirements for recidivism.

Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 Delivered on February 22, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Park Sang-il

Daegu High Court Decision 86No95 delivered on September 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel

Unlike the case of protective custody under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, unlike the case of paragraph (2) of the same Article, if a criminal record and a requirement for recidivism are met, the risk of recidivism is naturally deemed to exist, and it is not necessary to separately prove the risk of recidivism, and it is not allowed to deny it by citing the evidence and counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 delivered on February 22, 1983).

Since the petitioner for the warrant of this case is sentenced to protective custody pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act, there is no argument about the risk of recidivism in a different view.

2. The grounds of appeal by the requester for the warrantment are merely the grounds for the motive leading to re-offending of the instant case, and thus, the ground of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)