Whether the crime of murder and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitute the same crime as the same crime under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act.

The crime of murder and the crime of violence and injury in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act are the same or similar crimes as provided by Article 5 of the Social Protection Act in the means, methods, types, etc. of the crime.

Articles 5 and 6 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do10 Delivered on April 26, 1983

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Jin-type

Seoul High Court Decision 87No638,87No62 Decided June 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, it is sufficient to recognize all the criminal facts of this case against the defendant, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

The same purport of the judgment below is justified since the crime of murder and the crime of assault and bodily injury in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitute a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do10 delivered on April 26, 1983).

In addition, the protective custody under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act does not require the risk of recidivism, so it does not obstruct the defendant to meet the above protective custody requirement on the ground that the defendant has a certain occupation or has living together with the victim.

Ultimately, there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles of Paragraph (1) of the Social Protection Act in the judgment below. As to the judgment rendered one year and six months of imprisonment as in this case, a legitimate ground for appeal can not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act, and as long as the requirements for protective custody are met, there is no discretion to change the period.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)