Whether the concurrent imposition of a protective disposition against imprisonment is against the principle of no punishment without prison labor (negative)

A protective disposition under the Social Protection Act is a protective disposition or observation disposition imposed for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation and protecting society with the aim of promoting rehabilitation of those who committed a crime and having the risk of recommitting a crime and requiring special education, improvement and treatment. Therefore, a protective disposition imposed concurrently with imprisonment cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of no punishment without prison labor as stipulated in the Constitution and laws.

Article 3 of the Social Protection Act, Article 11 of the Constitution

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Gangseo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1403,82No401 Decided September 23, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

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

A protective disposition under the Social Protection Act is a protective disposition or observation disposition imposed for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation and protecting society (see Articles 1 and 3 of the Social Protection Act) with the aim of promoting rehabilitation of those who committed a crime and having the risk of repeating a crime and requiring special education, improvement and treatment. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the protective disposition against the defendant is contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law as stipulated by the Constitution

In addition, according to the evidence of the appointment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant habitually committed the crime, and the reason to suspect that the confession in the investigation agency of the defendant is a false statement which is not voluntary by adviser cannot be found in the record, and there is no error of law in the taking of evidence preparation measures and there is no illegality in law of law as to habitual crimes such as theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)