When a request for protective custody is made pursuant to Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the propriety of the protective custody recognition pursuant to Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act without changing the protective custody claim (negative)

Since the requirements for protective custody under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act cannot be deemed to include the requirements for protective custody under Article 5(2)1 of the same Act, the court’s rate for cases of protective custody claim under Article 5(1)1 of the same Act without a prosecutor’s modification of the prosecutor’s request for protective custody claim under Article 5(1)1 of the same Act is a disadvantage to the defense right of the requester for protective custody, and thus, it cannot be permitted.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do38 delivered on April 12, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Although a public prosecutor's claim for protective custody does not constitute a protective custody requirement under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, even if the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act are met, the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the same Act cannot be deemed to include the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act. Therefore, the recognition of protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act without a prosecutor's request for protective custody shall be put at a disadvantage in the exercise of the defense right of the requester for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act without a prosecutor's request for protective custody. In this case, the court shall not rate the case to a trial without a prosecutor's request for protective custody.

In this view, the court below is just to dismiss the prosecutor's request for protective custody on the ground that the applicant for protective custody was sentenced twice to a punishment for the same or similar crime as the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. of this case, and that it does not fall under the protective custody requirement under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)