(a) Whether a person before or after the enforcement of the Social Protection Act commits a crime of the same kind or similar one after the enforcement of the Act is subject to protective custody under the same Act;

B. Whether Article 5 of the Social Protection Act is unconstitutional

(a) A person subject to protective custody disposition under Article 5(2)1 of the Social Protection Act shall be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for a crime of the same or similar kind under the former part of Article 5(2)1 of the same Act, and even if the past record of a person subject to protective custody for whom the total term of three years or more prior to the enforcement of the same Act, commits a crime corresponding to the same or

B. The provisions of Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, which are the basis of a protective disposition, as a measure for crime prevention and edification, shall be imposed in parallel with the punishment, separately from the punishment, on the person before and after the sentence, who is in danger of repeating the same or a similar crime, cannot be deemed to violate the principle of res judicata as provided by the Constitution, the principle of no prosecution without law, the principle of no punishment without law, and

A. Article 5(2)1(b) of the Social Protection Act; Article 5 of the Social Protection Act; Article 12 of the Constitution, and Article 10 of the Constitution

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do995, 85Do136 Decided July 23, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Do1206, 85Do178 Decided July 23, 1985

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Yoon Jong-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 85No3146,85No392 Decided March 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the requester for the custody and the grounds of appeal by the state appointed defense counsel.

원심이 유지한 제1심판결 채용증거를 기록과 대조하여 자세히 살펴보면, 피고인 겸 피감호청구인이 제1심 판시내용과 같이 홍천읍 소재 시외뻐스터미널에 주차중인 서울행 직행뻐스에 올라가 마침 화장실에 간 승객이 좌석에 놓아두고 내린 쇼핑빽 속에 든 손지갑을 꺼내 작크를 열고 돈을 꺼내다가 경찰관에게 발각당하여 그 목적을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그친 사실이 넉넉히 인정되며 그 사실인정과정에 논지가 주장하는 것과 같이 심리를 다하지 아니하거나 채증법칙을 어겨 사실을 오인한 위법이 없으니 이점 논지 이유없다.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of the state appointed defense counsel.

In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below that the crime of this case by the defendant and the defendant of this case committed habitual crimes, and that the risk of recidivism is recognized is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. Thus, this issue is without merit. Even if the defendant of this case was sentenced more than twice to imprisonment without prison labor or a similar crime under the former part of Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and the record of the defendant of this case committed the crime of the same kind or a similar crime in the latter part of this Act after the enforcement of this Act, the defendant of this case becomes a person subject to protective custody under this Act, so long as it constitutes the crime of the same kind or a similar crime in the latter part of this Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above provision of this Act, which is the basis of this case, conflicts with the principle of res judicata, the principle of no punishment without the law, the principle of no punishment without the law, and the principle of equality rights.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are to include 80 days of detention after the appeal in the imprisonment.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)