A. Whether larceny and stolen property crimes are identical or similar crimes

(b) Whether the case falls under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act in the case of a claim for protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the same Act

A. The crime of larceny and stolen is different from the protected legal interest and the nature of the crime, and the elements of the crime are different, and the crime cannot be deemed as the same or similar crime as provided by Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act.

B. Article 5(2)1 and 2 of the Social Protection Act differing from each of the requirements for protective custody, as clearly stated in the provisions of the same Article. In full view of the procedures for the request for protective custody under Article 14 of the same Act and the procedural provisions for the protective custody judgment under Article 20 of the same Act, so long as a prosecutor claims protective custody by applying the same subparagraph and the cause of the claim falling under subparagraph 1, it is not subject to the court’s judgment.

(a) Article 6(2)6(b) of the Social Protection Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do506 delivered on February 22, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Do38 delivered on April 12, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1012,83No233 decided Nov. 8, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of larceny and stolen is different from the protected legal interest and the nature of the crime, and the elements of the crime are different, and this crime cannot be deemed as the same or similar crime as provided by Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do19, Mar. 23, 1982). The principal facts charged for the two-year imprisonment with prison labor of December 15, 1969 among the criminal records of the requester for the head of the police station are larceny, and even if the prosecution was instituted for stolen, it cannot be readily concluded that the crime of stolen and stolen was guilty, even if the crime of stolen and stolen was charged for stolen and stolen, in comparison with the crime of larceny.

In the same purport, the court below dismissed the request for protective custody in the purport that the defendant's remaining three-time larceny criminal records alone do not meet the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act when the court below sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months in total. It is justifiable to dismiss the request for protective custody, and there is no violation of law that has not deliberated on the same or similar kind of both crimes.

2. Articles 5(2)1 and 5(2)2 of the Social Protection Act differing from the requirements of protective custody as clearly stated in the provisions of the same Article. In full view of the procedures for the request for protective custody under Article 14 of the same Act, and the procedural provisions for the judgment of protective custody under Article 20 of the same Act, so long as a prosecutor claims protective custody by applying the same subparagraph and causes for a claim falling under subparagraph 1, it shall not be subject to the court's ruling. Thus, in this case where it is evident that the court below applied subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 of the same Article, and it is obvious that the cause for the request for protective custody was made in a timely manner, the court below did not review whether it falls under subparagraph 2 of the same Article and did not fall under the former requirements, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below dismissing the

In the end, 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)