Whether double punishment of protective custody disposition is violated at the same time with imprisonment (negative)

The protective custody under the Social Protection Act is a so-called security measure aimed at promoting rehabilitation by improving education and protecting society in case of a person who commits a crime and is in danger of re-offending, and thus, it cannot be said that it is the same as the punishment, because it is clear that it is a so-called protective custody for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation by improving education.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 12 of the Constitution

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Cho Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 83No3198,83No639 Decided February 21, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for thirty days.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that sentencing is excessive in the instant case does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. The protective custody under the Social Protection Act is a so-called security measure aimed at promoting rehabilitation by improving education and protecting society in a case where a person commits a crime and is in danger of recidivism, and thus, it cannot be said that it is the same as the punishment, because it is clear that it is a so-called protective custody for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation by improving education, and at the same time is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a certain criminal

3. According to the records, the Defendant recognized that he had a history of imprisonment with prison labor for more than 6 years and 6 months in total on three occasions for the same thief as the instant crime, and that there is a risk of recidivism, and thus, the first instance court decision, which is under the protective custody for 7 years, is justifiable, and as long as the requirements for protective custody are met, it is necessary to sentence the Defendant to protective custody, and thus, it cannot be adopted that the exemption

Therefore, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is added to all the Justices who reviewed the appeal is delivered with the assent of all the Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)