A. Whether a sentence before the enforcement of the Social Protection Act is in violation of a protective disposition against a criminal suspect, and the principle of no prosecution (negative)

B. Whether a parole disposition should be taken into account during the period of punishment under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act

A. Even if a person who had been sentenced at least three times for a crime of the same or similar kind under the former part of Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act and had been sentenced to a total of five years or more before the enforcement of the same Act, he/she committed the crime in this case corresponding to the crime of the same or similar kind of crime after the enforcement of the same Act, the requester for protective custody becomes a person subject to protective custody under the latter part of the same Act, and this does not violate the constitutional provisions that set the principle

(b) A period of a prison term of five years in total under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act shall not be asked whether a disposition for parole has been taken in the execution of the sentence;

A. Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act; Article 2 of the Addenda of the Social Protection Act; Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2897, 81Mo78 Decided February 9, 1982

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean)

Seoul High Court Decision 82No284 delivered on July 30, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the requester for defense and the state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

Even if the record of the requester for custody was sentenced at least three times for the same or a similar crime under the former part of Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act, and committed the crime of this case corresponding to the same or a similar crime under the latter part of the above Act before the enforcement of the above Act, as long as the crime of this case falls under the following after the enforcement of the above Act, the requester for custody becomes the subject of a protective custody disposition under the same Act, and the total term of the above five years shall not be asked for a parole in the execution of the sentence. Thus, the court below's decision that maintained the first instance court's decision that is over 10 years under the protective custody pursuant to the above Article 5(1)1 of the above Act is just and the judgment of the court below does not violate the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which provides for the principle of

In the end, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that there is no ground to appeal against the lower judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)