A. Criteria for determining whether the risk of recidivism under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act exists or not

(b) The case holding that there is no risk of reoffending;

A. As to the existence of the risk of re-offending under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, it shall be determined whether there is a high probability that the criminal suspect will destroy the legal peace by comprehensively examining all the materials such as the age, criminal record, family relation, environment, occupation, conduct, motive, means, method, circumstance after the crime, education level, etc. of the requester for re-offending.

(b) Cases where there is no danger under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act;

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3075 Decided April 10, 1984

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Cho Jae-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 87No109 decided August 19, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the existence of the risk of re-offending under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, it shall be determined whether there is a high probability that the criminal suspect will destroy the legal peace by comprehensively examining all the data such as the age, criminal record, family relation, occupation, conduct, motive, means, method and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and level of education of the requester for re-offending. The requester for re-offending should be deemed to have retired from high school, but the applicant for re-verification of the crime has passed the examination and announcement, has a certain occupation like his mother, faithfully work with good faith, and the mother is frighten, and the degree of damage to the crime is minor, and the criminal record and the crime of this case are different from that of the requester for re-offending, and if there are circumstances, such as the situation that the requester for re-offending has committed the thief over several occasions, and even if the recidivism is recognized, there is no risk of re-offending.

The judgment of the court below is just to determine that there is no risk of re-offending against the requester for protective custody, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on protective custody.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)