Whether the risk of recidivism in the application of Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act should be deliberated and determined separately (negative)

In the case of protective custody under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, it should be viewed that there is a risk of recidivism in light of the purpose of Article 1 of the same Act. Therefore, it is not necessary to review and determine whether there is a risk of recidivism.

Article 5 of Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1879 Delivered on September 13, 1983

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 84No867,84No156 delivered on May 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant) and the state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is not difficult to recognize the criminal facts and the facts of the requirements for care and custody as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the confession of the defendant. In addition, since the defendant completed the execution of imprisonment in the first trial on September 9, 1979 and committed part of the crime of this case in the middle order of August 1981 within three years, it is clear that he constitutes a repeated crime, and in the case of protective custody under Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act, it should be viewed as having the risk of repeating a crime as a matter of course in light of the purport of Article 1 of the same Act, and therefore, it is not necessary to separately examine and determine the risk of repeating a crime. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)