The case holding that no habitual sex and risk of recidivism exists;

Even if the Defendant conspired to conduct a special robbery against young female in the street and committed a special robbery over 16 occasions in a short period of less than 3 months on the chest, the following records show that the instant crime is limited to temporary impulse appraisal and accident frequently appearing in the juvenile season, or to lack of temporary deviation or serious living attitude in the process of forming personality due to the lack of personality, and there is no other recognized data. Thus, the risk of habitual robbery and recidivism cannot be recognized on the ground that it cannot be recognized as the origin of robbery as the Defendant’s characteristic, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendants

Daegu District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 81Gohap84, 81 Inspector4)

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the defendant's case against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant and the defendant 2.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred and forty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the defendant and the defendant and the defendant and the defendant 1 are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal against the defendant and the respondent for detention is that the defendant and the respondent for detention are not subject to the so-called crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the court below rejected the defendant's request for protective custody against the respondent for detention on the grounds that the defendant and the respondent for detention are not subject to concurrent crimes of special robbery and special robbery, and that the defendant and the respondent for detention are not subject to habitual and recidivism. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's charges of robbery, which affected the defendant and the defendant's appeal to the extent that the defendant and the respondent for detention committed special robbery over 16 times in a short period of time without any previous conviction, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's charges of robbery, which affected the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel's second instance. Further, even if the defendant and the respondent for detention did not have any previous conviction, the court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant and the defendant's defendant's second appeal.

In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below compared the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge each criminal facts at the time of original adjudication against the defendants, and there is no other evidence to see that the court below erred in the fact-finding, and compared the records of the judgment of the court below, each so-called "the original adjudication by the court below does not fall under Article 5-4 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 334 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 342 and Article 334 (2) and (1) of the same Act of the same Act shall be deemed to fall under Article 334 (2) of the same Act and Article 344 (1) of the same Act (special robbery) of the same Act. The court below did not err in the misapprehension and application of the law, and there is no error of law by the court below as to the defendant's request for protective custody against the defendant for the reason of its judgment, and it is not reasonable or unreasonable.

However, according to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing against Defendant 2 and the reasoning for appeal of unfair sentencing by Defendant 2 and his counsel prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, Defendant 2 was examined on August 10, 1961, and Defendant 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of two years and six months, and a long term of three years on August 10, 1961 by the same defendant at the time of the declaration of the judgment of the court below, but the same defendant was an adult during the period of trial, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and the appeal against the defendant 2 with respect to the protective custody claim against the defendant 2 for the defendant 2 for whom custody is requested, are without merit. Thus, all of these appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part of the case of the defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the same Act, and it is again decided as follows,

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

In the so-called judgment of Defendant 2, each special robbery of Articles 1 through 15 of the judgment of the court below falls under Article 334(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 342, Article 334(2) and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 16 of the judgment includes the attempted special robbery of Article 334(2) of the same Act; Article 342 of the same Act and Article 334(2) and Article 334(1) of the same Act; since the above crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, Article 38(1)2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act are concurrent crimes with punishment of special robbery of Article 12 of the judgment of the same Act; the same defendant is a juvenile; there is a reason to take into account the above circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is the first offender; and the fact that the mistake of the crime is divided in depth; Article 53 and Article 55(1(3)3 of the same Act.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the habitual crime of robbery was committed several times, and the means, method, and character of the crime was identical only to that of the crime. The habitual crime of robbery is not acknowledged immediately. The habitual crime of Defendant 2 is acknowledged in the case where the crime committed several times is deemed to have been caused by robbery. As stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 committed robbery over 16 times as shown above. In full view of the materials revealed in Defendant 2’s statement and one-day records in the original and original court, the crime of this case by Defendant 2 is deemed to have been committed due to lack of temporary escape or serious attitude in the process of forming character due to the formation of personality due to the lack of personality, and it cannot be acknowledged that the crime of this case was committed by the robbery of the crime of this case and the crime of this case committed by this case cannot be acknowledged as having been committed by the robbery of the crime of this case, and there is no evidence of the crime of this case concerning the robbery of the crime of this case and the crime of this case.

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

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)