The meaning of the risk of re-offending under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act and the criteria for such risk.

The risk of re-offending as a protective custody requirement under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a probable probability that the respondent would commit a crime again in the future. The criteria for the determination shall be determined objectively in full view of all the circumstances such as the age, environment, occupation, motive, method of crime, method of criminal record, time interval between the last criminal record and the last criminal record, contingency and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do81 Decided September 11, 1984

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 85No1524,85No193 Decided October 4, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The risk of recidivism as a requirement for protective custody under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a probable probability that the requester for protective custody will commit a crime again in the future, and the criteria for the determination shall be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances such as the age, environment, occupation, motive, method of crime, method of criminal record, time interval between the last criminal record and the last criminal record, contingency and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's act of this case committed the crime of this case 5 years after the completion of the execution of punishment with the final judgment, and committed the crime of this case 5 years after the completion of the execution of punishment with the final judgment, and committed the crime of this case 5 years after the completion of the punishment with the final judgment, the defendant was holding the amount of 5,000 square meters prior to the final judgment, and the defendant was holding the 5 years prior to the discharge of punishment against the aged older than 62 years old, and tried to engage in the farming day while going at the male house after the discharge of punishment, and tried to engage in the farming day at the after the discharge of the punishment. The court below held that there was no danger of re-offending the crime of this case .

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence or the legal principles on the risk of re-offending, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)