It is recognized that the risk of habitual and recidivism falls under the requirements for custody under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act.

The defendant, who has stolen or attempted to steals money and valuables equivalent to KRW 1,589,00 for 16 months, although the sum of the term of punishment sentenced to imprisonment with the same kind of theft and punishment is limited to 1 year and 4 months, but only 3 months have passed over 16 months, and without any other motive, repeated the same kind of crime and has been recognized as habitual crime due to multiple criminal facts, and has committed recidivism only 10 months prior to and after the back of the prison, and there is no occupation, and thus, it is recognized that there is a risk of recidivism in light of the fact that there is no occupation. Therefore, it constitutes the requirements for care and custody under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Seoul High Court Decision 84No2851, 84No436 Decided January 23, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the requester for custody are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although it is clear that the sum of the punishment term imposed by the defendant for the same type of larceny of this case was 1 year and 4 months, the court below judged that the defendant committed a theft or attempted to steals over 1,589,00 won through 16 months from April 20 to July 11, 1984 in this case, and that the defendant repeated the same kind of crime without any specific motive. Thus, the court below's determination that the defendant's punishment was Habitual due to several criminal facts, and the defendant committed a second offense only within 10 months from the date he was released from prison due to the final conviction and crime, and there is no occupation at all, and therefore, it constitutes a danger of repeating a crime by the requester for the same type of larceny of this case. The court below's decision is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the risk of repeating a crime under Article 5 (2) 2 of the Social Protection Act for less than 1 year under the premise that it did not constitute an unlawful punishment for less than 3 months.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)