Whether the crime of injury and special robbery and injury by robbery are the same or similar crimes under the Social Protection Act.

The crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury) and special robbery, robbery, injury by robbery, etc. belong to the same or similar crimes as referred to in Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act.

Article 6 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2243, 83Do393 Decided October 11, 1983

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Shin Jae-nam

Gwangju High Court Decision 86No61, 86No6 decided March 14, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") and state appointed defense counsel are examined.

According to the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it is not difficult to recognize the defendant's previous conviction as stated in its reasoning, and it belongs to the same or similar crime as prescribed by Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act, such as the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury) and the special robbery of this case and the crime of robbery and injury by robbery. Thus, the dispositions against the defendant under the protective custody 7 years pursuant to Article 5 (2) 1 of the same Act are just and there is no illegality in the law. Furthermore, with respect to the judgment sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years as in this case, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing. It is not acceptable or acceptable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)