The case holding that there is no risk of recidivism even though habitually committed;

Both the Defendants were 1 times prior convictions, and obtained the necessary skills for life from those who were engaged in the stores manufacturing machine, printing machine, boiler hole, etc., and divided the errors, and have led the future. Therefore, even if the habitual nature of theft and robbery is recognized, the risk of recidivism is not possible.

Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 81 Gohap377, 37, 82No74 decided on the Dong Branch of the Seoul District Court

Of the judgment below, the part of the defendant's case against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 and the part of the custody case against the defendant 1, 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for a short term of five years, for a long term of six years, for a term of six years, for a term of six years, and for a term of two years and six months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 145 days included in the above punishment.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 3 shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Seized Evidence Nos. 4 through 14 (one thousand divers, one divers, two small diversabs, one diversand one diversbs, one diversities, four flusium, one flusium, one flusium, one flusium, one flusium, one flusium, and four masck) shall be forfeited from the Defendants.

Defendant 4's appeal against the accused case is dismissed.

One hundred forty-five days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the imprisonment of the original judgment against the above accused.

All of the protective custody claims against the respondent is dismissed.

1. Determination of the accused case

The first point of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 is that there was no special robbery in the prosecution of this case, and that the court below found the above defendant guilty of the above facts charged despite the fact that he was locked by the reserve force training relation at the time and time stated in the above facts charged, and there was an error of law by mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The second point of appeal by the above defendant and the second point of appeal by the defendant and the defendant 1, 2, 4 (hereinafter the above defendant and the defendant 1, 4 (hereinafter the above defendant and the defendant 1, 2, and 4) and the summary of the grounds of appeal by the public defender of the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel are unfair because all the decisions of the court below against the defendants

Therefore, in light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts by Defendant 3, each of the crimes of this case against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 at the time of original adjudication including Defendant 3’s special robbery, in full view of the testimony at the court of original trial by Nonindicted Party 1’s witness at the court of original trial, and even after examining the records, there was no error in the process of fact-finding by the court below. The following facts are examined in detail: the motive, means, result, degree of damage, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., which are the conditions for the punishment lawfully investigated by the court below, are considered to be unfair, but the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is deemed to be excessive, so the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is unfair from this point, and the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants’ appeal is justified, but it cannot be accepted as the grounds for appeal.

Accordingly, under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal filed by Defendant 4 against the accused accused case shall be dismissed, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 145 days of the number of detention days per trial prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the imprisonment of the original judgment against the above accused. In accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the accused case against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 among the original judgment shall be reversed, and a party

Since the criminal facts of the defendant 1 and 3 recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are the same as the original inquiry time, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 5-4 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 34 (2) of the Criminal Act; Article 333 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 34 (2), and Article 33 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 2-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 34 (1) and 33 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 31 (2) of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 2-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Defendants 4 and 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Defendants 1 and 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. Determination as to custody cases

In the end, the court below erred in sentencing seven years to protective custody against the defendant and the respondent for protective custody (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant for protective custody") and their public defenders.

Therefore, according to the judgment of the court below, in light of the fact that the requester for a warrantment had repeated robbery and theft crimes as stated in his judgment within the period of time, the court below held that the risk of recidivism is recognized, considering the past criminal records of the requester for a warrantment and the habitive walls as stated in the judgment of the court below.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it can be recognized that the requester for defense committed a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which constitutes death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than five years, although considering whether there is a risk of recidivism, Defendant 4 was the initial offender of the crime in this case, and Defendant 1 was sentenced two years of suspended sentence to Defendant 1 on January 17, 1981 as a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act at the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court, and Defendant 2 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 months, and Defendant 2 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 months in prison at night, and Defendant 1 was also found to have been aware of the risk of recidivism in both cases and Defendant 2’s age as the petitioner for the crime of larceny, even after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than 10 months at night. However, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 were still aware of the danger of recidivism.

Therefore, the court below acknowledged the risk of re-offending with only the habitive walls shown by their past behaviors and the crime of this case against the inmates, and found the risk of re-offending, by misunderstanding the legal principles of the risk of re-offending as a requirement of protective custody, and therefore, the appeal by the respondent pointing this out is justified, and the part of the protective custody case in the judgment below is not reversed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

The prosecutor has applied Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act to the respondent for a protective custody for 7 years, and thus, the defendant filed a request for a protective custody for each 7-year protective custody. As stated in the preceding reasoning of the judgment below that the respondent for a protective custody recognized habitualness for each of several criminal facts and the statutory penalty was committed for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which corresponds to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than 5 years, as stated in the reasons for reversal of the judgment below. However, as the above reasons for reversal are examined, it is not recognized that there is a risk of recidivism to the respondent for a protect

Accordingly, in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Social Protection Act, all of the protective custody claims of this case against the protective custody requester is dismissed.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)