Whether the provisions of the Social Protection Act on protective custody are unconstitutional (negative)

The protective custody disposition under the Social Protection Act does not violate the due process under Article 13(1) of the Constitution or Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which provides for the principle of no penalty, the principle of no penalty penalty, the principle of no penalty penalty, and the principle of no punishment against double Jeopardy.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Articles 13(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Yoon Young-young

Supreme Court Decision 87Do2297, 87Do215 Decided December 8, 1987

Gwangju High Court Decision 88No6 delivered on July 27, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the grounds of appeal by a public defender:

The protective custody disposition under the Social Protection Act is an isolation in a protective custody facility to restrain the physical freedom, but it cannot be seen as the same as the punishment, so the Social Protection Act’s provision, which provides for the same in parallel with the punishment, cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 13(1) of the Constitution that provides the principle of no penalty, the principle of no penalty, and the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy. In addition, the above Social Protection Act’s provision does not violate the due process under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

As to the grounds of appeal by the requester for the warranting:

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, we affirm the court below's disposition which recognized the facts of the reason for the custody of the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the facts of the custody. Therefore, the issue is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)