(a) Whether the self-denunciation statement is a statement showing the reason for reduction of or exemption from punishment;

(b) Whether a person who has a previous offense under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act and meets the requirements for re-offending can bring a dispute against the risk of re-offending;

A. Reduction or exemption of punishment by self-denunciation is at the discretion of the court, and the assertion of the number of self-denunciation cannot be regarded as a statement of fact that is the reason for the reduction or exemption of punishment.

(b) No person shall be allowed to deny the risk of repeating a crime on the ground that there is no need to separately prove the risk of repeating a crime, for a person who meets the requirements for a criminal record and a second offense under Article 5(1) of the

A. Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 52 of the Criminal Act. Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do503 delivered on April 12, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 delivered on February 22, 1983

Defendant

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Shin Shin-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 85No1652,85No214 Decided August 27, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence for fifty days.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant-appellant and the national defense counsel are also examined.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below after comparing it with the records, the measures taken by the court below to recognize the criminal facts and the facts of the requirements for care and custody against the defendant who is concurrent with the defendant and the defendant are justified and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as litigation, and mitigation or exemption of punishment due to self-denunciation is based on the court's discretion and it cannot be viewed as a statement of facts with the grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment. Thus, even if the defendant asserted a number of self-denunciation at the court below as stated in this theory, unless the court below did not recognize it and did not recognize that the decision should be mitigated, there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below since the court below did not indicate it and there is no need to separately prove the risk of recidivism against the person who meets the requirements for criminal records and re-offending under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, and it is not allowed to deny the risk of recidivism on the ground of counter-written evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do680, Feb. 22, 1983).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)