The case holding that it is not a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act

If the criminal records of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act of the Applicant for the Custody are all the crimes of bodily injury, assault, habitual injury, obstruction of the performance of official duties, habitual assault and damage, etc., such crimes are not the same or similar crimes as those of the crime of robbery by intimidation, or habitual assault by intrusion upon residence.

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Jeonju District Court (82 Gohap37, 82 Senior 7)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred and sixty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The protective custody claim against the requester for protective custody shall be dismissed.

The first summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the respondent for protective custody (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant) is that the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant committed the act of violence such as attempted threat, intrusion upon residence, intimidation, injury, etc. of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, and the second point and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is so unreasonable that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable, and is in a protective custody for 10 years. The court below's judgment is unlawful. The court below's decision on the ground that the prosecutor changed the indictment and the request for protective custody from custody from the previous charges and the grounds for protective custody to the court below's judgment after being remanded and revoked Article 283 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, corresponding to the above facts and the grounds for appeal, and the judgment of the court below's decision on the grounds for appeal cannot be reversed and omitted pursuant to Article 26 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On December 23, 1968, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Jeonju District Court on December 23, 1968, and completed his prison service in the Jeonju prison on June 29, 1979, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime until he completed his prison service in the Jeonju prison on June 29, 1979, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and six months in the same court on June 17, 1981, and was sentenced to six months in prison in the same court on June 17, 1981, and was reinstated from the Jeonju prison on January 4, 1982 and completed the execution of the sentence

1. At around 22:40 on January 24, 1982, the victim non-indicted 1, 198, who was living in the Republic of Korea, was aware of the power of the defendant and a bad character of the defendant, and in order to bring money from the defendant, he said that "it should be able to bring about the money from the defendant, which means that "I will help and help us to bring about a few hundred thousand won of the 10,000 won of the 10,000 won of the 10,000 won of the 10,000 won of the 10,000 won of the 10,000 won of the 2

2. On 25. 02:00 of the same month, a new shoes was entered the house of a vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable that he would sleep against the will of Nonindicted Party 2.

The facts of the judgment

1. A statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of Nonindicted Party 1 in the court of law.

1. The statement in the first trial record of the court below, which corresponds to the part of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment of Non-Indicted 1 and 2 in the second trial record of the court below.

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the prosecutor; and

1. Each statement made by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer against Nonindicted 1 and 2 regarding the preparation of administrative affairs related to the statement, which conforms to the facts of the judgment.

1. Each statement consistent with the facts of the previous conviction in the judgment among the investigative data card prepared by the third chief of the Public Security Headquarters and the certification of the release of the chief of the previous correctional institution;

Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, the certification is sufficient.

In addition, the court below's judgment for non-guilty in the law falls under Articles 2 (1), 352, 350, and 319 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 35 of the Criminal Act, since a repeated crime is committed before the judgment, within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act, Article 35 of the same Act imposes a heavy weight on a repeated crime, and within the limit of the term of punishment, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 2 years and 6 months, and 160 days from the number of detention days before the sentence is declared shall be included in the above sentence

Although the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of intrusion upon the residence of the second person, according to the above evidence, it is not recognized that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime, or that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no other reason.

According to the written request for protective custody of this case, the requester for protective custody of this case is a person without a certain occupation who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months from the date of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Jeonju District Court on December 23, 1968; on November 14, 1970; six months from the said court for the same crime; on August 3, 1972; on October 25, 1973, one year from imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc.; on October 30, 1974, one year and six months from the said court for the same crime; on October 30, 1974, one year and six months from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Jeonju District Court on June 19, 197 and one year and six months from the date of the execution of each sentence at the said court on June 16, 198.

1. On January 24, 1982, the respondent requested that the victim living in Jinancheon-gun, Jinancheon-gun, Jinancheon-gun, who had been living in the prison, "I will help and live in a few hundred thousand won in order to operate the 10,000 foot vehicle." The victim refused that "I would like to interfere with it, where we will do so, I would like to have the victim interfere with it, and I would like to have the victim interfere with it, and I would like to have the victim interfere with it, and I would like to have the victim's body." However, I did not respond to the withdrawal of the money, and I would like to have the victim interfere with it, because I would like to have the victim interfere with it.

2. On the 25th day of the same month, when the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment of at least three times for the same or a similar crime and the total term of punishment is at least five years, and the defendant committed a crime of the same or similar crime falling under death, imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for at least seven years within three years after the execution of the final sentence is completed, according to the evidence adopted by the defendant case at the same time prior to the examination, the criminal facts of the defendant's written request for custody are all acknowledged as they are, but all were bound to the records, and the criminal facts of the defendant's previous prosecutor's office assistant, which were bound in the records, do not constitute an attempted crime of the same or similar crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of violence, etc. committed under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, since the crime of the defendant was committed again within 10 years after the execution of the final sentence is completed. According to the evidence adopted by the defendant at the same time prior to the examination.

Therefore, since the claim for protective custody of this case is deemed groundless, it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Social Protection Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge) will Kim Sang-hoon