Whether protective custody measures under the Social Protection Act are unconstitutional

Since the protective custody disposition under the Social Protection Act is a kind of protective disposition that is concurrently imposed on imprisonment with prison labor, it cannot be deemed that it violates the principle of no punishment without prison labor as stipulated in the Constitution and laws, and the provision of protective custody does not violate the principle of no punishment without prison labor.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3161, 83Do524 Decided February 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 480) Supreme Court Decision 90Do135, 90Do19 Decided March 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1024)

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Hong-in

Busan High Court Decision 95No543, 95No19 delivered on August 24, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. 90 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (the defendant is simply the defendant) and the state appointed defense counsel are examined together.

1. The court below's decision that held that the evidence specified in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below is all likely to prove crimes against the defendant and repeat crimes as stipulated in Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, is not erroneous in the misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence, and thus, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

In addition, in this case where imprisonment for less than 10 years is sentenced, the argument that there is a ground to recognize that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The Supreme Court’s established view that a protective custody disposition under the Social Protection Act is a kind of protective disposition that is concurrently imposed on imprisonment with prison labor, and it cannot be deemed that it violates the principle of no punishment without prison labor as prescribed by the Constitution and laws, and that the provision on protective custody is not a violation of the provisions of the Constitution that provides the principle of no punishment against double Jeopardy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do3161, 83Do524, Feb. 14, 1984; 90Do135, 90Do135, 90Do19, Mar. 27, 199). Accordingly, the ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without merit, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)