Whether the crime of larceny and stolen good offices constitutes the same or similar crime as the requirement for protective custody under the Social Protection Act.

The crimes of larceny and stolen goods shall not constitute the crimes of the same or similar kind as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act.

Article 2 of the Social Protection Act, Article 5(1)1 and 5(2)1 of the Social Protection Act, Article 6(2) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 81 Gohap374, 81 High Court Decision 88)

The appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant shall be dismissed.

Of the summary of the appeal by the defendant and the respondent for the defendant's appeal (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants"), the first point was to arrange the defendant to sell and purchase the pictures of this case and sirens, etc. without knowledge of stolen, but the court below found the defendant guilty, which affected the judgment, and the second point and the second point of the appeal by state appointed defense counsel are so unreasonable that the decision of the court below is too unreasonable. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the crime of larceny and stolen intermediary is a crime in a relationship with the means and method which can not be considered separately, and thus, the court below dismissed the defendant's claim for protective custody of this case for the reason that the court below did not constitute a crime of the same or similar kind of crime under the Social Protection Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of a crime of the same or similar kind of crime

Therefore, the first ground for appeal by the defendant is examined, and the various evidences (in particular, the confessions of all the crimes in the court below) duly adopted by the court below after the examination of evidence is examined in light of the records, it is possible to fully recognize each of the crimes of this case by the defendant as alleged by the court below. Therefore, the grounds for appeal on mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

The following facts are examined as to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal. The defendant is acknowledged to have committed the crime of this case under imprisonment with prison labor for more than three times and with prison labor for more than five years in total, within three years after being sentenced to such punishment. The protective custody under the Social Protection Act is based on the premise that the crime of this case is identical or similar to the crime of larceny and the crime of this case. The defendant's criminal records are the same kind of stolen criminal records or the crime of this case as stolen criminal records or the crime of this case, and the crime of larceny and stolen property brokerage cannot be deemed to be a crime under Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant committed the crime of this case similar to the criminal facts of this case. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal of this violation of the Social Protection Act shall not be accepted.

Finally, examining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, in detail the circumstances as to whether the sentencing imposed by the court below on the defendant is proper and unreasonable, in light of the motive, means, result, degree of damage, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is inappropriate and too unreasonable.

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-dae et al.