Whether the crime of embezzlement of custody and larceny is "a crime of the same or similar type" as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act (negative)

The crime of embezzlement in the Defendant’s previous conviction is that the Defendant, who received a request from another person for the custody of KRW 70,000 in cash, wrongfully consumed and embezzled the Defendant’s use. However, in light of the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 6(2) of the Social Protection Act, it is difficult to view such embezzlement as a crime identical or similar to larceny, which is another criminal offense of the Defendant.

Article 6 of Social Protection Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

(National)Attorney Lee In-bok

Daegu High Court Decision 81No574,81No28 delivered on July 10, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, when a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more than two times for the same or a similar crime and has been sentenced to punishment for a total of three years or more after having been sentenced to punishment for all or part of the final sentence or exempted, commits a crime of the same or similar crime corresponding to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for a maximum of five years or more, and is recognized to be in danger of re-offending, the criminal facts of embezzlement in the criminal records of the criminal defendant shall be subject to protective custody for seven years. According to the records, the criminal facts of embezzlement in the criminal records of the criminal defendant, such as the theory of the lawsuit, are requested from others for custody of KRW 70,000 in cash and embezzled by voluntary consumption of the criminal for the use of the criminal. However, such embezzlement criminal records cannot be

Ultimately, the court below's decision that the defendant is not a person eligible for protection under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Social Protection Act, since the defendant's remaining punishment period of larceny except for the above embezzlement is less than 2 years and 3 years are less than 2 years.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)