Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

The risk of recidivism as a protective custody requirement under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act requires a lack of possibility of recidivism only with the possibility of recidivism, and it should be highly probable to repeat the crime. The judgment criteria should be determined strictly by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, means and method of crime, circumstances after the crime, education level, etc.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do385 delivered on September 27, 1983

Defendant Saryaryary Appellant and one other

Defendant-Appellant and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-chul

Gwangju High Court Decision 84No507 delivered on December 2, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

With respect to Defendant 1, twenty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. First of all, we examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the respondent for custody (limited to the defendant) and the state appointed defense counsel.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the facts of the original judgment against the defendant, including the car, mar, Rer, and Rer's criminal facts, and the risk of recidivism, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence by applying Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and there is no violation of any act of violation of the rules of evidence in the assistance measures under the protective custody of the defendant for seven years by applying Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act. In addition, with respect to the judgment sentenced to imprisonment for two months as in the case of this case, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under the Criminal

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the following prosecutor.

The risk of recidivism as a requirement for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act requires a sufficient probability of recidivism, and there is a reasonable probability of recidivism. The judgment criteria should be strictly determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the age, family relation, academic background, occupation, means of crime, method, method of crime, circumstances after crime, education, etc. of the requester for protective custody. In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the request for protective custody by the defendant 2, who is the requester for protective custody, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the crime of this case alone does not exist the risk of recidivism, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding the legal principles on the risk of recidivism.

3. All appeals are dismissed. With respect to Defendant 1, 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 participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)