The case holding that the risk of recidivism cannot be deemed to exist.

The case holding that the risk of recidivism cannot be deemed to exist.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2300, 85No286 Decided November 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the applicant for the defense had been punished as an act of violence four times as the time of the original trial, the court below has been found to have been employed as the defendant for the last two years after he had been faced with the last trial, and has lived with his family without any mistake. The crime of this case is also committed with the victim who has been engaged in a conflict with his friendship and drinking at the main point, and the above victim was playing as the defendant with his own bridge at the expense of the plaintiff, while playing as the defendant with his own bridge, he did not participate in entertainment and was dissured, and has compensated the victim for damages after the crime of this case, and the victim did not want to punish the defendant for the crime of this case, and therefore, the court below's decision that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period after the last sentence of the crime of this case, the method and motive of the crime of this case until the date of crime of this case, the degree of harm after the crime of this crime, and the risk of recidivism in the living environment and the defendant's.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)