(a) To carry the excessive activities of violence in Australia and the dangerous articles;

B. Whether the crime of larceny and special robbery is identical or similar (affirmative)

A. As long as the Defendant had carried the excess of the ruling at the time of the instant crime at the scene of the crime, this constitutes a crime under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act where he carries dangerous articles.

B. Since the crime of larceny and special robbery is stipulated in Chapter 38 of the Criminal Code stipulated in Article 6(1)2 of the Social Protection Act, the crime of larceny and special robbery is of the same or similar kind as the crime of larceny and special robbery in the judgment of the defendant, and such act constitutes the requirements for care and custody under Article 5(2)1 of the same Act.

(a) Article 3(1)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Do430 delivered on April 30, 1971

Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2532,83No499 delivered on January 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below after comparing the records and evidence, it is justifiable to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant; and

1. The theory appears to the purport that the defendant committed the crime in the state of mental disorder or weakness by making the defendant aware of the details of the crime under the influence of alcohol in detail. However, according to the records, even if the defendant drinking alcohol and was at the scene of the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant was in the state of mental disorder or weakness, and as long as he did not appear to be a crime due to the occurrence of mental fission, and as long as he carried excessive matters in the field of the crime, this is a case of carrying dangerous things, this is a case of carrying dangerous things, so there is no violation of the decision of the court below that made a rate of action under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and there is no illegality in the decision

2. Since the crime of larceny and special robbery is stipulated in Chapter 38 of the Criminal Code stipulated in Article 6(1)2 of the Social Protection Act, the crime of larceny and special robbery is deemed to be a crime of the same or similar kind as the crime of larceny and special robbery in the judgment of the defendant, and the judgment of the court below that the above act constitutes the protective custody requirement under Article 5(2)1 of the same Act is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the same or similar type of crime and the risk of recidivism, such as the theory of lawsuit, even if it is considered reasonable.

3. Criminal facts and causes of protective custody against the defendant are clear by legal text that they are not subject to a requisite defense under Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 21 of the Social Protection Act, and even if they do not fall under Article 33 subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act and fall under Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the same Act, the defendant did not request the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel in this case, and there is no error of law in the first or second instance measures that did not appoint a state appointed defense counsel in this case.

In this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the grounds which seem to result in unfair sentencing cannot be considered as legitimate grounds for appeal. Therefore, all of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench, by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, that 70 days from the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)