(a) Examples recognizing the risk of reoffending under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act;

B. Whether a protective custody disposition against a person with a sentence prior to the enforcement of the Social Protection Act and the principle of no payment in law violates (negative)

A. In light of the facts that the applicant for the warrant of custody was sentenced to three times more than a prison term of four years, and completed the execution of the final sentence, the crime of this case was committed without any occupation, and the criminal records of this case were committed in only one year, and the criminal records of this case also were committed in knife, and the victim was injured with excessive knife without any special reason, the risk of recidivism is recognized to the requester for the warrant of custody in light of the fact that the victim was injured with knife without any special reason.

B. Since the sentence as a requirement for protective custody under the Social Protection Act is prior to the enforcement of the Act, regardless of whether it is prior to or after the enforcement of the Act, the requester for protective custody committed the crime of this case corresponding to the same or a similar crime even if he/she had been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more than twice for the same or similar crime before the enforcement of the Act, so long as the crime of this case is committed after the enforcement of the Act, the requester for protective custody shall be subject to protective custody under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Act, and this does not violate the Constitution of the Republic

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

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Do2897, 81Do278 Decided February 9, 1982, 82Do2196, 82Ga244 Decided October 26, 1982

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Park Byung-hee

Daegu High Court Decision 83No242,83No58 delivered on March 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty days of detention days prior to the rendering of judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

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

1. In light of the facts established by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to three years of total of four years of punishment and completed the execution of the final sentence without any occupation, and the criminal records of the defendant were all damaged by the knife, and even in the case of this case, the defendant was suffering from excessive knife, and the victim, a female, without any special reason, was inflicted with knife, and thus, the court below's decision that recognized the risk of re-offending by the defendant is acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the risk of re-offending.

2. Since the sentence of this case as a requirement for protective custody under the Social Protection Act is prior to the enforcement of the Social Protection Act, regardless of whether it is later or later, even if the petitioner for protective custody had been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more than twice for the same or similar crime before the enforcement of the above Act, it can be said that the petitioner for protective custody can be subject to protective custody disposition under Article 5 (2) 1 of the above Act as long as the crime of this case constitutes a crime of the same or similar kind of crime after the enforcement of the above Act, and the above interpretation is contrary to the constitutional spirit that sets forth the principle of non-competence.

3. The grounds for the excessive determination of the first instance court's sentence maintained by the court below cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years is imposed. The grounds for appeal cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal that the period of protective custody for the seven-year protective custody is long. Thus, the argument on this point is groundless.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)