Whether the crime of intrusion upon residence is a crime of the same kind or similar to special larceny.

In order to steal property, intrusion upon residence is recognized as belonging to the same or similar crime in full view of the criminal records of the defendant, special larceny, and the means and methods of committing the crime and the tendency of committing the crime.

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Do1788 delivered on June 8, 200

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court East Branch (81No505)

Supreme Court Decision 82Do178 Decided June 8, 1982

Of the judgment below, the part of the custody case is reversed.

A requester for protective custody shall be punished by ten years.

The 30 days out of the number of days of custody and confinement before the judgment shall be included in the period of custody and custody.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal concerning the part of the custody case in the trial (the part where the custody case is reversed and remanded) has been the criminal record of special larceny more than 4 times before and after the written indictment. Such special larceny among the charges is deemed to have the relation between the crime of intrusion upon residence for which the conviction was affirmed and the crime of the same or similar crime under the Social Protection Act. Thus, the requester for special larceny is the person subject to the protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and the person subject to protective custody should be subject to the protective custody, but the court below dismissed the prosecutor's claim for protective custody not related to the crime of special larceny and intrusion upon residence for the purpose of theft.

Therefore, Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act provides that "a crime of the same or similar type of crime" under Article 5 of the same Act refers to a case which falls under any of the following subparagraphs in relation to a crime before and after, and subparagraph 6 thereof provides that "the crime of the same or similar type of crime is recognized as belonging to the same or similar crime by taking into account the nature of the crime, the means and methods of the crime, the tendency of the crime, and the type of the crime. As recognized by the court below, if the crime of the applicant for the care and custody intrudes into the residence for the purpose of theft of the property and damages the glass of the victim but the victim was discovered, but the victim did not start the commission of larceny (this part was finally affirmed at the trial before and after remand), such intrusion upon the defendant's previous crime of larceny, the means and methods of the crime, the tendency of the crime, and the type of the crime, and thus, it is reasonable to determine that the above two crimes are not in relation to the same or similar crime, and thus the court below's dismissal of the claim for the same or similar crime under the Social Protection Act is reversed.

On May 5, 1972, a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of six months or more for special larceny in the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of eight months or more for a long term of ten months at the Seoul District Criminal Court on March 22, 1973. On April 26, 1974, a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a special robbery, intrusion upon residence, etc. at the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court and completed the execution of each of the above sentence on March 20, 1980 and was sentenced to one year at the original prison on March 9, 1981 and completed the execution of the above sentence on March 24, 1981, and was habitually intruded by the victim of the non-indicted 28 of Seongdongdong-gu in Seoul with the aim of taking property around 19:00 on June 24, 1981.

The above requirements for custody are satisfied.

1. Of the trial records of the court below in the first instance, the part of the statement that meets the requirements for care and custody of the requester.

1. Statement made in accordance with the above custody records among the suspect interrogation records prepared by a prosecutor and a judicial police officer;

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, which conforms to the above custody and custody.

1. A reply to the fact inquiry prepared by the head of the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court, a copy of the judgment prepared by Nonindicted 3 to the prosecution assistant of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, and each statement consistent with the facts in the judgment among the investigation data cards with respect to the respondent for custody prepared by the chief of the third branch of the

In full view of the above facts, the above facts of the requirements for care and custody are sufficient.

The facts of the requirements for custody of a person subject to custody fall under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and thus, the requester for custody shall be punished by 10 years of protective custody. In accordance with Article 20 (6) of the Social Protection Act, 30 days of the number of days of protective custody prior to the imposition of judgment shall be included in the period of protective custody. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judge Final (Presiding Judge)