The case reversing the court below's decision on the ground that there was an error of law that sentenced 10 years of protective custody even though the person is 50 or more

The case reversing the court below's decision on the ground that there was an error of law that sentenced 10 years of protective custody even though the person is 50 or more

Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Kang Han-hee

Gwangju High Court Decision 85No65,85No16 decided May 31, 1985

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding protective custody case shall be reversed.

A person who is subject to protective custody shall be punished by seven years.

The appeal against the accused case shall be dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after appeal shall be included in imprisonment for 55 days.

In full view of the part of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for the correction of facts as well as the part of the public defender's grounds of appeal by the public defender, and the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the original court and the court of first instance, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is not possible to mislead the facts by violating the rules of evidence, due to the lack of reasons or incomplete deliberation, or violating the rules of evidence, and as to the defendant's grounds of appeal, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal to find that the amount of punishment against the defendant is unfair. Thus, each of the above grounds of appeal cannot be adopted.

Then, according to Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act, even when a person subject to protection is subject to protective custody for 10 years or more, if the person subject to protection is 50 years of age or older, the person subject to protective custody shall be subject to 7 years of age or older. According to the records, it is apparent that the defendant was 50 years of age or older at the time of the sentence of the court below on February 19, 1935, and the defendant was 50 years of age or older at the time of the sentence of the court below. Thus, the court below found that the court below sentenced the defendant to 7 years of protective custody in this case for which the corresponding case subject to protective custody is recognized, but prevented the defendant from misunderstanding

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant’s prosecuted case is without merit, and is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment, and the appeal against the protective custody case shall be reversed on the ground that the judgment of the lower court is reasonable. Since it is deemed sufficient to render a judgment based on the records of trial, the lower court, and the evidence investigated by the court of first instance, it shall be decided directly by the party

The facts and evidence related to the requirements for protective custody cases, which a member states, are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, maintained by the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

A person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment on at least three occasions for the same or a similar crime, and whose total term of punishment is at least five years, and has committed a crime of the same kind or a similar crime corresponding to imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for at least seven years within three years after the execution of the final sentence, and thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for seven years under the proviso of Article 5(1)1

It is consistent with the opinion of the judge involved in the above judgment.

Justices Lee Il-il (Presiding Justice)