Main Issues
Examples recognized that there is a risk of reoffending
Summary of Judgment
On November 10, 1964, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Supreme Court at the Daegu High Court on December 12, 1967, three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Daegu High Court on March 4, 197, two years of suspended execution with prison labor for the same crime at the Daegu District Court on March 4, 1975, one year of suspended execution with prison labor for the same crime at the same court on November 18 of the same year, and the execution of the above suspended sentence is terminated, and on June 27, 1977, two or more times of imprisonment with prison labor for the same or similar crime at least three years in total, and further, on November 24, 1979 and January 20, 1981, and the defendant was punished for a violation of the Punishment of Violences Act.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defendant
Appellant. An appellant
Prosecutor
The first instance
Daegu District Court (81 High Court Decision 79, 81 High Court Decision 3)
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year 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.
A person who is subject to protective custody shall be punished by seven years.
Reasons
The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant and the respondent for detention (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") committed the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act 4 times and one time and 6 years and 4 months in total, and habitually committed the crime of this case, and even if there is a risk of recidivism in light of the motive and method of the crime, the court below sentenced the defendant to one year, and dismissed the request for protective custody by the court below is unfair, and the punishment is unreasonable, and it affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the risk of recidivism.
In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum period of eight months, short-term six months, June 1963 at the Daegu District Court on December 12, 1961; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the same court on June 19, 1963; ten months; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the same Act on November 10, 1964; six months; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Military Service Act at the Daegu District Court on July 26, 1966; and three years; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act on December 12, 1967; imprisonment with prison labor for a limited period of nine years or more; imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Daegu District Court on March 4, 1975; and imprisonment with prison labor for a more than two-year period of one year or more; and imprisonment with prison labor for a similar one-year or more than nine years.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is judged again after pleading.
The criminal facts recognized by a member of a political party and the facts related to the requirements for custody and custody, and the evidence relation to them are as follows: “The utility of the second fact shall be impaired” in the end of the second fact at the time of the original trial; and the summary of the evidence may be recognized by the motive, means, results, and the character and conduct of the defendant, intelligence, environment, etc. of each criminal record and the crime in this case, and the risk of recidivism may be recognized in the summary of the evidence. Therefore, this shall be cited as it is by the court below.
Since the court below's decision-making is subject to Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260 (1), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months within the scope of a repeated crime committed within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act pursuant to Article 35 of the same Act, and 140 days out of the number of detention days before the sentence is sentenced to Article 57 of the same Act, and the requester for detention shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the same or similar crimes, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which are sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and the total term of imprisonment for more than five years, and the risk of re-offending shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of more than five years pursuant to Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and the requester for detention shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)