The appeal shall be dismissed only for a protective custody case, and the defendant's assertion of facts different from the established facts of the offense (negative)

The facts constituting a crime subject to protective custody are the same as the facts established in the judgment of the defendant in the defendant case, so long as the judgment of the defendant case became final and conclusive without filing an appeal, it cannot be argued that the facts constituting a crime subject to protective custody are erroneous on the basis of facts different from

Article 20 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do388 delivered on September 27, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Lee Im-hwan

Daegu High Court Decision 84No297 delivered on January 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the requester for defense and the state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below maintained, recognized the facts constituting a thief offense in violation of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, with the content of the thief offense as stated in its judgment, and is sentenced to 1 year and six months of imprisonment, and 10 years of protective custody, but there were errors in violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts due to incomplete deliberation, and the determination of the punishment is also unjust.

However, the argument that the defendant's appeal is excessive because the respondent's protective custody disposition is unfair and the appeal is not filed against the judgment on the part of the case, and that the judgment on the defendant's case becomes final and conclusive as the grounds for appeal cannot be a ground for appeal against the judgment of the court below. Meanwhile, as long as the judgment of the defendant's case became final and conclusive as there is no filing of appeal against the facts constituting the crime of the defendant's case, it cannot be argued that the facts constituting the crime as the protective custody requirement is erroneous on the ground that it is different from the facts established, all of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju