Whether a protective disposition under the Social Protection Act violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or the principle of non-payment of law (negative)

A protective disposition, which is a protective disposition for the prevention and edification of crimes in the future, against a person before or after a sentence having the risk of repeating the same or similar crimes, shall not be deemed to violate the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or the principle of non-payment of law in parallel with the punishment.

Article 1 of the Social Protection Act, Article 12 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2653,82 Inspectordo561 Decided December 28, 1982

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Hung-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 82No3135,82No852 Decided March 23, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty-five days from among the days of detention pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined together.

1. Examining the trial evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with records, the court below's decision that recognized the criminal facts against the defendant is justifiable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory

2. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Social Protection Act, a person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment before the enforcement of this Act shall be deemed to have been sentenced to a punishment in the application of Article 5 (1) 1 and (2) 1 of the same Act, and even if a person is sentenced to a punishment before the enforcement of the Social Protection Act, he shall be deemed to have been sentenced to a punishment before and after the enforcement of the same Act, and shall be deemed to have been subject to protection without distinction from the person before and after the enforcement of the same Act. However, Article 1 of the Social Protection Act provides that even though a person is sentenced to a punishment before and after the enforcement of the same Act, who has committed a crime of the same or similar kind of punishment, and is in need of special education improvement and treatment, thereby promoting rehabilitation and protecting society, and a protective disposition under the Social Protection Act provides that it is not just double punishment of a person who has already been sentenced to a punishment, but also it shall not be deemed to have any ecological or repeated violation of the Act or the principle of res judicata.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)