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

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, separately from the punishment.

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

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1070 Delivered on June 28, 1983

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kang Kang-hwan

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2695, 85No337 Decided November 28, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for thirty days.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In full view of the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the crime of this case was committed habitually, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the premise that the defendant's crime of this case cannot be recognized habitually as a contingent crime.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In addition, it cannot be said that a protective disposition as a measure for crime prevention and edification in the future against a person who is in danger of repeating a crime of the same or similar kind ecologically or habitally, is in violation of the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or the principle of non-payment of law in parallel with the punishment, separately from the punishment. (See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1070, 83Do208 delivered on June 28, 1983).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the days of detention after the appeal is to be included in the imprisonment under Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)