A. Whether Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, which provides that the court shall only issue a protective custody disposition without setting a time period, is unconstitutional (negative)

B. If only a custody case is appealed, a summary of the grounds for appeal concerning the violation of the rules of evidence as to the recognition of the criminal facts of the defendant case (negative)

A. Article 5 of the Social Protection Act provides that a court shall only order a protective custody disposition without setting a period of time in violation of Article 12 and Article 27 of the Constitution.

B. The appeal shall be filed only for the part of the custody case in the appellate judgment, and the appeal shall not be filed as a ground for appeal as to the custody case on the ground that the appellate court's judgment which found the defendant guilty of a public prosecution violation of the rules of evidence, which found the facts guilty.

A. Articles 12 and 27 of the Constitution, Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, and Articles 20(1) and 20(7) of the Social Protection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Do171 delivered on February 23, 1990 (Gong1990,823). Supreme Court Decision 90Do85 delivered on June 12, 1990 (Gong190,1512)

A

Applicant for Custody

Attorney B

Seoul High Court Decision 90No1692, 90No112 delivered on July 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 5 of the Social Protection Act provides that a court shall only issue a protective custody disposition without setting a period of time, but this does not constitute a violation of Articles 12 and 27 of the Constitution on the sole ground of this reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do171, Feb. 23, 1990). Thus, we cannot accept the argument.

2. The appeal shall be filed against the part concerning custody cases in the appellate court's judgment, and the appeal shall not be filed against the judgment of the appellate court which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, on the ground that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence in the appellate court's judgment which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do85 delivered on June 12, 190, 190). Thus,

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)