Cases of denying the risk of recidivism

Although the crime of this case by the requester for the warrant of custody belongs to the crime of the same kind as the previous punishment, it is not only the temporary, contingent, and scambling due to excessive exploitation, but also the amount of damage and the degree of injury are relatively minor, the victim and the defendant for the warrant of custody are able to deal with the crime in light of the agreement that is the profit of the crime, and the victim is able to clearly distinguish his own crime. In addition, the requester for the warrant of custody has a certain position before the crime of this case, and has been in good faith and had life before the crime of this case, and currently has been under the guarantee of reemployment, and therefore there is no "risk of the crime" against the requester for the warrant of custody.

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Seoul High Court Decision 84No368,84No67 delivered on April 12, 1984

The custody case portion of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the requester for custody are examined.

The lower court, based on the results of the judgment of the first instance court, dismissed the appeal filed by the requester for the custody of the protective custody in the first instance court for recognizing the risk of recidivism and the risk of recidivism by applying Article 5(2)1 of the Social Protection Act.

However, in light of the above facts, the petitioner for detention was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, assault, injury) and obstruction of performance of official duties at Suwon District Court on September 26, 197, and the above court on December 22, 1982 sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury, Destruction) and completed the enforcement of the sentence at each time and released on April 3, 1983, and again committed the crime of the same kind as above, it appears that the crime of this case was committed temporarily, contingent, and sculptive acts due to excessive exploitation, and the degree of injury was relatively insignificant, and the petitioner for detention from Suwon District Court on September 26, 197, the petitioner for detention submitted a request for correction to the effect that the victim would return the above crime to his home on the ground that he had no clear understanding of the danger of recidivism by the defendant, and that the defendant also submitted a new request for correction to 184th of the final appeal.

Therefore, the part of the custody case in the judgment below is reversed, and it is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)