The meaning of "the nature of crime, the means and methods of crime, the type of crime" under Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act.

Article 6(2)6 of the Social Protection Act provides that “The nature of a crime, means and methods of a crime, tendency of a crime, and type of a crime” is an example of crimes. Although the nature of a crime differs, if the means and methods of the crime are the same as those of the means and methods of the crime, it constitutes the same or similar crimes. Therefore, the crime of causing property damage in the criminal record of a criminal defendant, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by intimidation with a deadly weapon or by inflicting bodily injury on another, and the crime of attempted murder in this case committed by a criminal who threatened another by violence and inflicted bodily injury on another by using a deadly weapon, etc., shall be the same as the means and methods of the crime in that it constitutes a violent crime of causing bodily injury on another person.

Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Prosecutor

The number of attorneys-at-law (Korean)

Seoul High Court Decision 81No3162,81No513 Decided March 18, 1982

Of the judgment below, the part on protective custody is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the defendant (1) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny for 10 months from April 4, 1974; (2) 10 months from May 14, 1976; and (3) on February 8, 1978 at the Busan District Court that the defendant threatened another person with lethal weapons and stolen another's property; (4) on the ground of violation of Articles 3(2) and 2(1), 2(1), 283, and 329 of the Criminal Act; and (4) on August 17, 1979, each of the above crimes cannot be deemed as having been committed under the presumption that the defendant committed an attempted murder or a similar crime under Article 2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. and Punishment of Victims, etc. was committed under the premise that the defendant cannot be deemed as having committed an attempted murder under the condition that he committed an attempted murder under the same Act or a similar crime under Article 3(2).

2. However, Article 6(2) of the Social Protection Act provides that, as a person committing a crime, who is deemed to have the risk of recommitting a crime and requires special education improvement and treatment, rehabilitation is promoted as a protective disposition, while the person who repeats a crime of the same kind and nature with the aim of protecting society from the crime to protect society, the social protection act functions to protect one society in which correction is given by isolation from society. Thus, in the case where the name of the crime is the same, in the case of crimes provided for in the same chapter of the Criminal Act, the crimes provided for in the Criminal Act and the punishment thereof are committed under the same Act other than the Criminal Act. In the case of crimes provided for in the same Act other than the Criminal Act, not only the crimes provided for in Acts other than the Criminal Act but also those concerning the aggravated punishment thereof, the means and methods of the crime and the tendency of the crime, etc. are deemed to fall under the same or similar crimes. Although the method of the crime and the tendency of the crime are different, it should not be interpreted to meet the legislative requirements of the same kind or similar crime.

Thus, among the defendant's convict power, the above crime of damaging property, the crime of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act that threatens other person with a deadly weapon, the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act that inflicts bodily injury on other person for ten days prior to the transfer of the defendant, and the crime of attempted murder, etc., which did not result in murder by two times the head of the victim's head by saving the defendant's head, but the crime of attempted murder, etc., which caused six-day bodily injury, is the same as the method and method of the crime in that the crime is a violent crime that inflicts bodily injury by using a deadly weapon, etc., even though the crime is different from each other. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that these crimes are identical or similar to each other.

3. Ultimately, the court below did not err in the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Social Protection Act, and there is a reason to discuss an appeal to the Supreme Court against this error since it is obvious that this error affected the judgment, and therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)