[1] In a case where the confinement of an inmate is released during the process of filing a petition for remedy under the Personal Protection Act, the existence of the benefit of the petition and the measures to be taken by the court

[2] The case affirming the judgment below's dismissal of Gap's claim for remedy, in a case where Gap's guardian was changed to confinement facilities and prisoners by re-hospitalize Gap at other hospital on the same day while the appellate court was in progress, and the first prisoner was released from confinement, and the court below's dismissal of Gap's claim for remedy was not dismissed, and the court below's dismissal of Gap's claim for remedy

[1] In light of the contents and purport of Articles 1, 6(1), and 16 of the Personal Protection Act, and the fact that prompt remedy against the freedom of human life of the inmate has not been made because the custody of the inmate or his/her custody had been repeated due to the reasons on the part of the inmate or his/her custodian during the process of the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the relief, if the examination of the legitimacy of the request, such as the legitimacy of the confinement and the necessity for continuing the confinement, has been considerably conducted upon the request for remedy, then the request for remedy can not be ruled out that there is no benefit in the request for remedy only on the grounds of the cancellation of the request, unless the request for remedy, such as the case where the inmate, etc., has been detained again in other confinement facilities for the same reason as the one for which the request for remedy was made, or that the necessity for continued confinement has ceased. Therefore, the court should not reject the request for remedy in such a case, but it is reasonable to determine the substantive reasons for the above cancellation.

[2] In a case where the first instance court completed a review on the legality of the confinement procedure and the necessity for continued confinement of a inmate Gap upon the request for remedy by the inmate Gap and dismissed it, and the first prisoner was released from the confinement and on the same day, and Gap's guardian changed the confinement facility and prisoner by re-hospitalizeing the inmate Gap into another hospital, the case affirming the court below's dismissal of the petition for remedy on the ground that the aforementioned cancellation of confinement was not a ground for rejection of the petition, and the court below's dismissal of the petition for remedy on the ground that the initial confinement of the inmate was illegally commenced or it is difficult to deem that the continued confinement was extinguished.

[1] Articles 1, 6(1), and 16 of the Personal Protection Act / [2] Articles 3, 6(1), 8, 10, and 13(2) of the Personal Protection Act

Re-appellant

Prisoners

Supreme Court Order 2011Ma1 Decided June 14, 201

Suwon District Court Order 2011Ra2 dated October 5, 2011

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The purpose of the Personal Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) is to protect fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by establishing procedures for personal relief, which unfairly restrict the freedom of human beings due to illegal administrative dispositions or expropriation of facilities by private persons (Article 1 of the Act). A person whose confinement has been cancelled due to a court ordering the rescission of confinement of an inmate upon accepting a petition for remedy cannot be re-detained for the same reason as the premise for a petition for remedy (Article 16 of the Act). Meanwhile, the Act does not provide for the grounds for rejection of a petition for remedy (Article 6(1) of the Act).

In light of the contents and purport of each of the above provisions, and the fact that prompt remedies against the freedom of human body of the inmate have not been granted because the release and re-acceptance of the inmate were repeated due to the reasons on the part of the inmate's guardian or the part of the inmate during the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the relief, if the examination on the legitimacy of the request following the request for remedy and the necessity of continuing the confinement have been completed to a considerable extent, it shall not be deemed that there is no benefit in the request for remedy only on the ground of the cancellation of the confinement, unless the request for remedy, such as the inmate, has been re-detained to other confinement facilities for the same reason as the one for which the request for remedy was made, or the possibility of being re-detained for the same reason has not been ruled out. Therefore, in such a case, the court should not dismiss the request for remedy, but it is reasonable to determine the substantive reasons of the confinement, such as whether the initial expropriation

The lower court, upon the instant petition for remedy, dismissed the first instance court’s entirety review on the legality of the procedure of confinement and the necessity for continuation of confinement. However, during the appellate trial, the first instance court affirmed the first instance court’s ruling dismissing the instant petition for remedy on the ground that the first instance court’s ruling, based on the following reasons, did not constitute grounds for rejection solely on the fact that the guardian of the inmate released the inmate from confinement by re-hospitalizeing the inmate to another hospital, and the change in the relevant confinement facility and the relevant prisoner was made.

In light of the above legal principles and the proceedings of the trial of this case, the judgment of the court below on the interest of the relief claim of this case is justifiable. Meanwhile, according to the records, the court below's measure maintaining the first instance court's decision is just and acceptable on the grounds that the acceptance of the inmate was illegally commenced or the need to continue the confinement was not extinguished. It did not err in the misapprehension of the Constitution, laws, orders or rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)