It is necessary to judge whether a person subject to custody under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act is likely to recommit a crime.

It is not necessary to separately prove the risk of re-offending to a person who meets the requirements for re-offending under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, and it is not allowed to deny the risk of re-offending on account of the counter-written evidence. Therefore, the court below's decision that did not examine and decide the risk of

Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 Decided February 22, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 85Do366 Decided January 21, 1986

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Yellow Han-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2380, 85No297 Decided November 13, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The 90 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the period of protective custody.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent and defense counsel are examined.

1. According to the records, the criminal facts of this case, which meet the requirements for protective custody, are the same as the criminal facts confirmed by the accused case, and the judgment of the accused case becomes final and conclusive because it is not erroneous in the process of examination of evidence, and it cannot be argued that the criminal facts of this case, as the requirements for protective custody, are erroneous in the process of examination of evidence. Thus, the appeal for the same reason cannot be accepted.

2. Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act does not require a separate proof of the risk of re-offending to a person who meets the requirements for re-offending, and it does not permit the denial of the risk of re-offending by citing counter-written evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do680 delivered on February 22, 1983). The measures that the original court did not examine and decide on the risk of re-offending by the respondent are just and it is not unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of re-offending

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of days of detention and confinement after the appeal shall be included in the protective custody period. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)