Article 5 of the Social Protection Act provides the criteria for determining the danger of re-offenders.

The risk of re-offending under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act is not sufficient enough enough to re-offending, and there is a high probability that a person subject to protection may injure the legal peace by committing a crime again in the future. The criteria for judgment shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the requester for re-offending, the criminal conduct before and after the crime, motive, means, circumstances after the crime, and situation after the crime, and the crime in question shall not necessarily be likely to re-offending due to habitual habition.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Do108 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1388) 91Do128 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 156) 92Do13 delivered on September 222, 1992 (Gong192, 3039)

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Dong-young

Busan High Court Decision 93No591, 93No30 delivered on August 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act provides that the possibility of repeating a crime is not sufficient enough, and it is highly probable that a person eligible for protection may injure the legal peace by committing a crime again in the future. The judgment criteria should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the occupation and environment of the applicant for the re-offending, the behavior before and after the crime, the motive, means, circumstances after the crime, and the situation after the crime, and the situation after the crime is committed, and it cannot be said that there is a danger of repeating a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do108 delivered on August 8, 1989).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of all the circumstances mentioned above, the court below's decision that the risk of re-offending cannot be recognized is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)