In protective custody cases falling under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, the summary of judgment on the risk of recidivism

In the case of Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, as long as the criminal records and the criminal requirements are met, the risk of recidivism shall be considered as a matter of course, and it shall be interpreted that there is no separate requirement to recognize the risk of recidivism. Therefore, in a protective custody case falling under the above Article 5 (1), there is no need to separately examine and determine the risk of

Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 delivered on February 22, 1983, 84Do2471, 84Do377 delivered on December 26, 1984

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Cha Jong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 85No216 delivered on October 23, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Article 1 of the Social Protection Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to promote rehabilitation and protect society by imposing a protective order on a person who commits a crime and is deemed to have the risk of re-offending and to require special education, improvement, and treatment. In light of the above, Article 5 (1) of the same Act is the same as the case of Article 5 (2) of the same Act. However, in the case of Article 5 (1) of the same Act, the risk of re-offending is naturally considered to be the risk of re-offending and it is interpreted that there is no separate requirement to recognize the risk of re-offending (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 delivered on February 22, 1983). Thus, it is not necessary to separately examine and determine the risk of re-offending in a protective custody case falling under Article 5 (1) of the same Act.

Therefore, the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below acknowledged the criminal records and criminal facts under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and found the defendant under protective custody for 10 years is legitimate, and there is no reason to believe that there is no deliberation or determination as to the risk of recidivism due to the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Social Protection Act.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju