logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 2. 25. 선고 85감도377 판결
[보호감호][공1986.4.15.(774),584]
Main Issues

The meaning of "a person with a total of three years or more" under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act;

Summary of Judgment

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act refers to a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years, which means a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years. Thus, if the sum of the term of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on three occasions is at least three years, the person subject to a petition for reduction of punishment falls under "a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years" even if the period of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on three occasions is less than three years after obtaining parole during the said period.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 83Do113 Decided June 28, 1983

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

upper and high-ranking persons

Applicant for Custody

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2313,85No289 Decided November 6, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act provides that "a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years" means a person whose total term of punishment is at least three years. Thus, if the sum of imprisonment with prison labor imposed three times over three years is less than three years, a person subject to a request for a request for a protective custody shall receive benefits during the period of parole, and even if the actual term of punishment is less than three years, the person subject to a request for a protective custody shall be "a person with prison labor for at least three years" (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do113, Jun. 28, 1983). Thus, in light of the records of a single case, the court below's decision recognized the fact subject to protective custody against the person subject to a request for a protective custody as above is just and there is no error in recognizing the fact subject to protective custody. Therefore, there is no argument to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow