(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.9.14.선고 2018누3074 판결

2. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff regarding the application for the cancellation of the designation of an organized inmate against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The text shall be as shown in the text.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 3 million won on the ground that he/she committed robbery, in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) and gambling, etc. (Article 2015No. 10), and the Plaintiff appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing (Article 2015No. 10 of the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court, the Seoul High Court reversed the first instance judgment ex officio on the ground that the indictment was modified with the following contents on May 27, 2016, and sentenced the Plaintiff to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 3 million won (Article 2015No2144 of the Seoul High Court), and the Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed, but the appeal became final and conclusive on August 24, 2016 (Article 2086 of the Supreme Court Decision).

The portion of injury by robbery was 6,380,000 won in cash. "The portion of the crime was 1,550,000 won in cash." "The part of the crime was scambling "(a group, deadly weapons, etc.) of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) that was changed to another person." "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.)" in "special intimidation", "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act.

B. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s release on bail was revoked along with the above appellate judgment and was admitted to the Seoul detention center, the head of the Seoul detention center designated the Plaintiff as an organized violent inmate pursuant to Article 104(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Act”) on the same day (hereinafter “instant designation disposition”).

C. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff, via the Ansan Prison, was transferred to the Third Prison of North Korea on November 7, 2016. On July 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of the designation of an organized inmate, claiming that the Plaintiff is not subject to the designation of an organized inmate. However, on July 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the said application for the cancellation of designation against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rejection disposition”) on the following grounds.

[Correspondence to Civil Petitions] (A evidence No. 1)

[Resecting to the civil petition] (No. 1 No. 1) 5. In relation to the application for the cancellation of the designation of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of his/her member of the Committee

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and all pleadings No. 2. Judgment as to this defense

A. The defendant's assertion

rejection of the application for the designation of organized violence inmates or for the cancellation of such designation shall be to set the criteria for future treatment for organized violence offenders admitted by correctional institutions to correctional facilities.

purport of this chapter

The decision-making is merely an incidental decision-making, and the decision-making itself does not cause a change in the legal status of the plaintiff, so it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition and therefore cannot be subject to appeal litigation.

Even if the designation of a member of the organized violence is deemed an administrative disposition, ① the Plaintiff had the opportunity to receive remedy through an appeal against the initial disposition of designating the member of the organized violence accommodation; ② According to the language and text of Article 199(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, the request for revocation of the designation of the member of the organized violence inmate is merely an administrative agency’s demand for ex officio withdrawal; ③ If the rejection of the above request for revocation of the designation is deemed an administrative disposition, the filing period of the revocation lawsuit against the designation becomes unlimitedly increased. In light of the above, the rejection of the request for revocation of the designation of the member of the organized violence inmate cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

B. Determination

1) The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be a subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of the law with regard to a specific fact that an administrative agency acts as a public authority and directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In mind, the administrative disposition shall be determined individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and Section 1 of the act, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of justice in the rule of law, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du20899, Feb. 13, 2014).

2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the act of designating the instant prisoner as the organized violent prisoner and the refusal of the application for the cancellation of the designation of the organized prisoner by the head of the correctional institution (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the correctional institution”) as the organized violent prisoner, and the refusal of the application for the cancellation of the designation of the organized prisoner by the prisoner constitutes the exercise of public authority as an enforcement of law on concrete facts. Thus, the Defendant’s main safety defense on a different premise is without merit.

(1) According to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, a warden may manage a prisoner who is determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, such as a person committing a crime involving narcotics, organized violence, etc. differently from a person with confinement to the extent necessary for the safety of the relevant facility or for the maintenance of order (Article 104(1) of the Criminal Execution Act), as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, such as blocking contact with other prisoners within the scope necessary for the maintenance of security and order of the relevant facility. (Article 104(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act); (2) prohibition of granting a volunteer, head of a Ban, promotion, chief of a division, or other duties representing prisoners is prohibited if the inmate is designated as a organized violent inmate (Article 200 of the Enforcement Rule of the Criminal Procedure Act); and (3) cases where it is deemed that there is a concern of grouping such as forming a force with a organized violent inmate at a place where the relevant facility is installed; and (4) restriction on basic treatment of the inmate, such as the Act on the Enforcement of the Criminal Procedure (Article 201 of the Organization and the Enforcement Rule).

(2) The designation of an organized violence inmate has the nature of an act of public authority that unilaterally forces the defendant to a prisoner in a superior position, and the designation of a organized violence inmate may not be revoked unless there are special circumstances (Article 199(2) main text of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act). Therefore, the validity of the designation has continuity, and the designation has the nature of compelling the inmate designated as an organized violence inmate to accept it, barring any special circumstance.

③ If it is deemed impossible to bring an action against rejection of an application for designation as an organized violent inmate or cancellation of designation as such, a person designated as an organized violent inmate is forced, without any justifiable reason, to suffer any disadvantage caused by his/her designated act, and is excluded from the treatment benefiting therefrom, and is infringed upon personal interests by putting a different seal with other prisoners. Article 4 of the Punishment Execution Act, which provides that the human rights of prisoners shall be respected to the maximum extent possible, violates the purpose of Article 5 of the Punishment Execution Act, which provides that the relevant prisoner shall not be discriminated on the grounds of gender, religion, disability, age, social status, region, origin, nation of origin, nation of origin, nation of origin, physical condition such as features, medical history, marital status, political opinion, sexual orientation, etc.

④ As above, the designation of an organized violent inmate or the cancellation of designation is directly related to the treatment of the inmate, and the time for the designation is also important for the inmate whose term of punishment is fixed. In light of the above, it is necessary to protect the prisoner’s fundamental rights from infringement of fundamental rights that may arise in the future as the object of an appeal litigation.

3. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 198 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a prisoner specified as a organized violence offender in the arrest warrant, detention warrant, indictment, or written judgment shall be subject to the designation of a organized violence offender." This shall be limited to "a case where the relevant crime which caused the confinement falls under a organized violence crime or was involved in a extensive force organization at the time of the commission of the relevant crime." The plaintiff only has the history of participating in the violent organization in around 2002 and thereafter did not participate in the violent organization, and thereafter, only is it stated in the past as "a person who was organized as a member of the organization" in the detention warrant, the indictment, and the written judgment that became the ground for acceptance of the instant case, and thus does not fall under the category of the organized violence inmate. Accordingly, the instant disposition rejecting the above cancellation of the designation should be revoked as it is unlawful and thus should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 2 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Scope of the subject of designation of organized violence inmates

A) According to the Act on the Execution of Punishment and its Enforcement Decree, ① With respect to a prisoner determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, such as a narcotics offender, organized violence offender, etc., a warden may, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, manage him/her differently from other prisoners, such as blocking contact with other prisoners within the scope necessary for the safety of facilities and the maintenance of order (Article 104(1) of the Act on the Execution of Punishment). ② The designation of an organized violent inmate shall be subject to the warrant of arrest, detention warrant, indictment or written decision, which is specified as an organized violent offender (Article 198 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Execution of Punishment, etc.), and the designation of the inmate as an organized violent offender is not specified in the indictment or written decision, but the designation of the inmate is not specified in Article 4, Article 5 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Article 114 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Act).

B) In full view of the following circumstances, the language and text, meaning, and the purport of the relevant statutes and the purport of the entire argument, the phrase “crimes of organized violence” under Article 198 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, which is subject to the designation of organized violence prisoners, should be interpreted as limited to cases where the relevant crime, which is the cause of confinement of prisoners, falls under a crime of organized violence, and where a prisoner was involved in an organized organization at the time of the commission of the relevant crime. In such cases, even though the relevant crime does not fall under such cases, the extended interpretation cannot be made even in cases where there was a history of participating in the past violence organization (see, e.g., Daejeon High Court Decisions 2018Nu10215, May 24, 2018; 2016Guhap80366, Apr. 27, 2017).

① Since the Criminal Administration Act and its enforcement rules are relevant to personal confinement, the provisions on the requirements for disadvantageous treatment to prisoners should be strictly interpreted. Since Article 198 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Criminal Execution Act provides that "a prisoner specified as a organized violence offender in the arrest warrant, detention warrant, head of a public prosecution, or written decision that is subject to the designation of a organized violence offender" is expressed in terms of the language and text, it cannot be said that it is included in the meaning of "a person specified as a organized violence offender in the past." Therefore, this part means only "in the case of a organized violence offender at the time when the document, such as the time when the relevant crime was committed or as above, is prepared," and it cannot be included in the scope of "in the case of a organized violence offender".

② As to this, the Defendant’s entry of the Defendant’s past force in the written judgment reveals that it constitutes a crime of violence that is directly related to the force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of force of the Defendant or the violent inclinations anticipated from such force. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the purport that even if the written judgment only states the Defendant’s past force of force of force of force of force of force of the Defendant, it shall be interpreted as falling under Article 198 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act. However, as seen earlier, such interpretation constitutes an extension beyond the language and text of Article 198 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, and thus,

③ The purpose of Article 104(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to designate organized violence offenders as organized violence prisoners and to control them differently from ordinary prisoners. Since the purpose of Article 104(1) is to ensure the safe and smooth operation of correctional facilities and to properly treat prisoners by strictly controlling inmates who are highly likely to disturb the order of confinement, it is not necessary to include them in the designated object even if they are currently unlikely to be treated.

④ Article 5 of the Execution of Punishment Act provides that “A prisoner shall not be discriminated against any other prisoner on the grounds of gender, religion, disability, age, social status, place of origin, country of origin, nation of origin, physical conditions such as features, medical history, marital history, whether married or not, political opinion, sexual orientation, etc., without reasonable grounds. In light of the purport of the provision, the prisoner’s past record alone shall not be discriminated against any other prisoner.

⑤ The latter part of Article 199(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Execution Act also provides that "a sentence to be executed after being executed during the current prison life falls under subparagraph 1 or 2 of Article 198." The same shall also apply to cases where "a sentence to be executed during the current prison life falls under subparagraph 1 or 2 of Article 198." In such cases, where a sentence to be executed or to be executed is related to a organized violent crime, a separate provision that can be included in the list of persons designated as organized violent inmates may be included.

(6) Article 199(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The warden shall not cancel the designation of a person designated as an organized violence recipient pursuant to paragraph (1) until he/she is released.” As such, the designation of a organized violence inmate shall not, in principle, escape disadvantage. Therefore, the designation of a organized violence inmate shall be carefully and carefully, and the requirements for the designation shall be more strictly construed.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is included in the scope of the subject of designation as organized violence inmates

An appeal suit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the relevant disposition against the defendant, who is the disposition agency claiming the lawfulness of the relevant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984).

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, it is recognized that the detention warrant for the pertinent crime that caused the plaintiff to be admitted, and the fact that "the defendant (the plaintiff of this case, the plaintiff of this case) is stated as "the person who caused the ○○○○○○mm wave" group in each letter of the judgment rendered on July 8, 2015 and the Seoul High Court Decision No. 2015No2144 Decided May 27, 2016, which is the pertinent judgment, on which Suwon District Court Decision No. 2015Kahap10, 18 (Joint) and Seoul High Court Decision No. 2014 decided May 27, 2016."

However, according to the records of evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and the results of the fact-finding on the chief of the police station of the first instance court, the Plaintiff only worked as a member of the “○○○○○○○○○mmbol” violent organization for about one year around 2002, and the Plaintiff was aware of the circumstances that were not belonging to the violent organization during the period from September 20 to September 21, 2014, which was at the time of committing the pertinent crime (abrogating robbery, intimidation to carry with a deadly weapon, robbery), which was the cause of expropriation.

In light of the above circumstances in light of the scope of the object of designation as organized violence inmates, the above facts and the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 submitted by the defendant alone fall under the crime of organized violence, and the plaintiff was involved in the organization at the time of committing the pertinent crime. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff constitutes the object of designation as organized violence inmates under the subparagraphs of Article 198 through Article 199 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, as organized violence offenders, and thus, the designation disposition of this case on the premise thereof is unlawful since there was no disposition reason from the beginning.

3) Whether the application can be filed for the cancellation of designation where the application is not subject to the designation of organized violence inmates.

Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Execution Act provides that "the warden shall not cancel the designation of a person who is determined as an organized violent inmate pursuant to paragraph (1) until he/she is released: Provided, That if it is deemed that the grounds for designation have been resolved due to changes in the indictment or the final decision of the court, the designation shall be cancelled after deliberation by the competent correctional officer meeting and resolution by the classification and treatment

As seen earlier, although the Plaintiff was not subject to the reasons for designating a member of organized violence under the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, it is unlawful for the Defendant to take the instant disposition. However, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff’s ground for revocation of designation as a member of organized violence inmates was resolved due to the amendment of the indictment or the final decision of the court.

However, in light of the purport of designating a member of the organized violence under the Criminal Procedure Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof mainly aims to maintain security and order of a correctional institution, the grounds for the revocation of the designation are not limited to the case where the grounds for the revocation of the designation are resolved in accordance with the amendment of the indictment or the confirmation of the trial, which is the grounds stipulated in the above provision formally. In other words, the grounds for the revocation of the designation under the above provision are based on the premise that the designation of the member of the organized violence itself is legitimate. Furthermore, since it is difficult for the prisoner to properly understand the specific grounds and circumstances designated as the member of the organized violence, it is difficult to dispute the designated disposition itself within the objection period for the initial designated disposition. Since the first time imposed the objection period for the designated disposition, it is too harsh for the prisoner to prevent the application from being filed for the revocation of the designation without meeting the requirements for the disposition from the first time, the purpose of the designation of the member of the organized violence mainly lies in maintaining security and order of the correctional institution. If it is no longer necessary or it is found unnecessary, it can be viewed that the application for the cancellation of the designation.

Unlike the defendant's assertion, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the rejection disposition against the designation of an organized violent prisoner, the defects of the initial requirements for designation can not be asserted, and in the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of the revocation disposition, the correction of indictment or the confirmation of a trial, the existence or absence of the grounds for revocation of the subsequent rejection disposition can be asserted. Thus, even though the security and the maintenance of order of a correctional institution were not necessary or unnecessary, the application for cancellation of designation cannot be filed until the prisoner is released, it cannot be permitted to excessively limit the prisoners' legitimate rights in light of the purport of Articles 4 and 5 of the Criminal Execution Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may file an application for the cancellation of designation on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under the scope of designation as a member of organized violence inmates from the beginning. Thus, the instant disposition rejecting the application is unlawful

4) Forced invalidity of the instant designated disposition and illegality of the instant refusal disposition

As alleged by the Defendant, even if a request for the cancellation of designation cannot be made on the ground of a defect in the initial disposition for the designation of an organized violence inmate, even if the request for the cancellation of designation cannot be made on the ground of the defect in the relevant disposition, considering the following circumstances known by the provisions and purport of the relevant statutes and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant disposition for the designation of the Plaintiff, which was not subject to the designation of an organized violence inmate, was unlawful, and its defect is significant and obvious, and thus, the Plaintiff may apply for the cancellation of designation on the ground that the initial disposition for the cancellation of designation is void as a matter of course. Accordingly, the instant disposition for the refusal of the Plaintiff’s request for the cancellation of designation is unlawful.

① In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to cause only the existence of an illegal cause, and its defect must be objectively obvious as it seriously violates an essential part of the relevant law and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11937, Sept. 21, 2007). In cases where an administrative disposition was taken by a party to a certain legal relationship or fact by applying a provision of a certain Act to a certain legal relationship or fact, the legal doctrine clearly stating that the provision of the said Act is not applicable to the legal relationship or fact, and even if there is no room for dispute over the interpretation thereof, if an administrative agency applied

② As seen earlier, the object of designation of a person to be admitted to organized violence under Article 198 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act is “a prisoner specified as an organized violence offender” in the arrest warrant, detention warrant, indictment, or written judgment. However, in the detention warrant, written indictment, and written judgment against the Plaintiff, it is not specified as “a person who works as an organization member at present,” and “a person who works as an organization member at present,” and “a person who works as an organization member at present,” and it does not fall under the subject of designation. However, it is clear that the Defendant’s excessive designation and designation of the Plaintiff as an organized violence inmate violates the important parts of the Criminal Execution Act and the Enforcement Rule thereof. In full view of the purpose of designation of the organized violence offender as well as the language and text of the above provision that do not include the past type of punishment, it is evident that it is objectively erroneous that it is not included in the object of designation of the organization violence under the above provision.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that the initial designation disposition of this case is legitimate and that the plaintiff does not have any reason to file an application for the cancellation of the designation, should be revoked as unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the disposition of second instance is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

(Presiding Judge)

Freeboard Kim

SPPPPY

Site of separate sheet

Attached Table 1

Criminal facts

【former Relationship】

Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties at the Suwon District Court on December 27, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 4, 2014, and is currently under suspension of execution.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Gambling;

In addition to ○○○○○, this ○○, and Gangnam-gu, from around 22:05 to September 21, 2014 on September 21, 2014, Defendant A opened a card with 5:0; from around 24:0 on September 20, 2014 to around 05:00 on September 21, 2014 to around 05:0, Defendant A opened an office of the ○○○○○, located in the Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-Si, Do-Si, Do-Si, Gun-Si, Do-Si, Gun-Si, Gun-si, Do-Si, Gun-Si, Gun-Si, Gun-si, with 3,000 won each time, and opened a 52 card for each person, and opened a 1 to 4 card for each person, and opened a 5-day pattern with the largest number or 4-day number.

2. The robbery inflicted on Defendant A and Kim △△△△;

Defendant A and Kim △△△△, a person working for a group of staff members of the 'OOOO-frequency' violence organization in the city of △△△△ (hereinafter referred to as the "OOOO-frequency"). When Defendant A lost money while gambling together with the victim ○○○ (the age of 40), this △△ (the age of 46), and Gangwon-do (the age of 59), Defendant A and Kim △△△△) conspiredd to deduct the victims from gambling money by assaulting and threatening them.

On September 21, 2014, at the time of 05:0, Defendant A told ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat, she told her Defendant A to the effect that the said Defendant her face was fluord, and her faceed on a boomed, and her chests were removed and her chested. At the same time, Defendant A she continued to raise the victim’s face on the face of this case at the time of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s seat, and she was fluting the victim’s face to the right side of this case, and Defendant A she was flut the victim’s face to the right side of this case.

As a result, Defendant A and Kim △△△: (a) conspiredd the victims to take the victims’ property by force; and (b) inflicted injury on the victims’ ○○○○, such as the finite strike that requires a four-day treatment; (c) injury on the chinite typosis, etc., which requires a two-day treatment; and (d) injury on the victim’s strong ○○○○○○, including the right-hand salt, which requires a two-day treatment.

3. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendant A (a group, deadly weapons, etc.)

On September 21, 2014, at around 05:00, Defendant A, as described in paragraph (1) at the place described in paragraph (2), carried a gambling board and left the gambling fund, with the escape of ○○○○, this △△△, and the strong ○○, left the gambling fund, and directed △△△△△△△△ to have money abundled. The Defendant directed △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ to have money abundled, putting the kitchen knife ( approximately 30cm in total length, about 18cm in blade in knife) which is dangerous in the main room, and putting the kitchen knife in hand the victim ○○ (43cm in knife) and threatened the victim by carrying the dangerous things with it.

Attached Table 2

Relevant statutes

Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act

The purpose of this Act is to promote correction and edification of convicted prisoners and their sound rehabilitation into society, and to prescribe necessary matters concerning treatment and rights of prisoners and operation of correctional institutions.

Article 59 (Examination of Classification)

(1) Each warden shall discount convicted prisoners to establish and adjust rationally the plan for individual treatment of convicted prisoners.

Gender, behavioral characteristics, qualities, etc. shall be surveyed, measured and assessed scientifically (hereinafter referred to as "classification review").

Provided, That this shall not apply where the term of punishment to be executed is short or any other special reason exists.

(2) Examination of classification of convicted prisoners shall be conducted to formulate an individual treatment plan if punishment is finalized.

The plan for individual treatment shall be adjusted when the prescribed term of punishment has lapsed or when the reward, punishment, or other grounds have occurred.

shall be classified into the review conducted for the purpose of

(3) Each warden shall assist convicted prisoners in an individual case concerning their personal affairs through counseling, etc. with them for an examination of classification.

G. A psychological intelligence aptitude test, and other necessary tests may be conducted.

(4) In order to conduct an examination of classification, each warden shall listen to necessary opinions from the external specialists or conduct an examination.

a request may be made.

(5) Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, matters necessary for classification review shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice.

Article 104 (Control of Narcotics Offense, etc.)

(1) Each warden shall ensure the safety of facilities for inmates determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, such as narcotics offenders and organized violence offenders.

To the extent necessary for the maintenance of order, the contact with other prisoners shall be prevented or the safe guard shall be taken seriously.

any other prisoner may be managed differently from other prisoners, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, such as the Ministry of Justice.

(2) No warden shall restrict basic treatment even in cases of management under paragraph (1).

Enforcement Regulations of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act

Pursuant to Article 194 of the Act, prisoners (hereafter referred to as "persons subject to strict management" in this Chapter) who are required to block contact with, or keep safe guard for the security and maintenance of order of a correctional institution shall be classified as follows:

1. A organized violent prisoner (referring to a prisoner designated pursuant to Article 199 (1); hereinafter the same shall apply);

2. A prisoner of narcotics (referring to a prisoner designated under Article 205 (1); hereinafter the same shall apply);

3. Prisoners subject to interest (referring to prisoners designated pursuant to Article 211 (1); hereinafter the same shall apply);

Article 195 (Indication of Number Marks, etc.)

(1) The number plates and colors of living rooms of persons subject to strict management shall be classified as follows:

1. Prisoners subject to interest: yellow;

2. Persons suffering from organized violence: yellow;

3. A prisoner of narcotics: Magaching;

(2) Where classification of prisoners subject to strict management under Article 194 overlaps, the number plates and colors of living room shall be the same.

The order referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) shall be followed.

When a warden imposes work on a person subject to strict management, he/she shall consider the results of an investigation, inspection, etc. under Article 59 (3) of the Act.

Article 198 (Persons Subject to Designation) The designation of organized violence prisoners shall be as follows:

1. A prisoner identified as a organized violence offender in a warrant of arrest, detention warrant, indictment, or written judgment;

2. Crimes of violence, etc. shall not be specified in the indictment or written judgment, but the punishment of violence, etc. shall be punished.

Prisoners to whom Article 4, 5, or 114 of the Criminal Act shall apply;

3. Article 199 (Designation and Rescission) of the prisoners specified as organized violence offenders in the warrant of arrest and detention of accomplices, victims, etc. or in the written judgment.

(1) With respect to prisoners falling under any subparagraph of Article 198, the relevant warden shall designate them as organized violence prisoners.

(c) A sentence to be executed or to be executed during the current prison life shall fall under subparagraph 1 or 2 of Article 198;

The same shall also apply in the case.

(2) The warden shall designate persons designated as organized violence prisoners under paragraph (1) until they are released.

shall not be allowed: Provided, That it shall be deemed that the reasons for designation have been resolved in accordance with the amendment of the indictment or the final and conclusive judgment.

(1) In the case of a correctional officer, the designation shall be cancelled after deliberation by the correctional officer meeting or the committee for classified treatment.

Article 200 (Prohibition of Assignment of Position Representing Prisoners) No warden shall assign organized violent prisoners to volunteers, team leaders, promotions, divisional heads, and other positions representing prisoners in a ward or workplace, etc.

Article 201 (Transfer for Cut-off of Connection Activities between Convicted Prisoners) Where deemed that a organized violent convicted prisoner is likely to be concentrated, such as forming his/her ability in a voice with other convicted prisoners at a workplace, the warden shall apply to the Minister of Justice for the transfer of the relevant organized convicted prisoner without delay.

Article 202 (Matters Requiring Treatment) Any warden shall, when a systematic violent prisoner meets with others, have him/her meet with the other persons, take into account the fact that there is a high possibility of linkage with an external violent group position, etc., and shall strictly apply the provisions governing the requirements for permission for the relevant treatment in cases where he/she determines temporary release or other special benefits.

Article 203 (Notification of Special Director) Any warden may, if any, notify relevant agencies, such as prosecutor's office or police station, of the details of correspondence and meetings of organized violent prisoners.

The objects of designation of prisoners subject to interest in Article 210 (Subject to Designation) are as follows:

4. An organized violent prisoner who disturbs the order of confinement by inducing another prisoner to bullying or gather a power, etc. (Article 33).

A person who commits a violence crime shall be included in the case of serving as a violence offender)

5. Work guidelines for classified treatment by a person detained again in a correctional institution within five years from the date of release as an inmate of organized violence for reasons other than innocence (Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 1124, July 4, 2016);

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these Guidelines is to prescribe matters concerning the examination and treatment of inmates as prescribed by the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and matters concerning the operation, support work, operation and management of the deliberative and resolution body, and autonomous system operation and management.

Article 83 (Standards, etc. for Selection of Workers for Assistance in Operation in the Place)

(1) The criteria for the selection of workers for supporting the operation of the premises shall be as follows:

1. Persons determined to be able to handle work through interviews, etc.;

2. A person who has a good attitude to living under confinement;

3. A person suitable for operation support work as a result of classification and review.

4. A person whose personality is not higher than the result of a personality examination;

(2) None of the following persons shall be selected as a support worker for the operation of premises under paragraph (1):

1. A person designated as a person subject to strict management under Article 194 of the Enforcement Rule;

2. A person designated as a heavy security or treatment grade. The end of the designation.

심급 사건

-대구지방법원 2018.4.18.선고 2017구합22673

대구고등법원 2018.9.14.선고 2018누3074