beta
Main Issues
A case recognizing the risk of re-offending where a criminal suspect, including a larceny, has committed another crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes
Summary of Judgment
The lower court’s judgment that recognized the risk of re-offending if the Defendant again committed the instant crime after having been sentenced to imprisonment for more than five times before and after the crime of in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and for whom seven years and ten months have passed in total, was justifiable.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 of Social Protection Act
An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defense Counsel
Attorney 000
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 89No2993, 89No287 delivered on December 21, 1989
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The thirty days, out of the days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.
Reasons
Defendant and Defendant Appellant and their state appointed defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.
1. According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or rules of evidence in light of the above legal principles.
2. The court below held that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment five times before and after the crime of the same kind or similar to the crime of this case, and seven years and ten months in total with the term of imprisonment, and recognized the risk of recidivism as the defendant committed the crime of this case of the same kind or similar after the execution of the whole final sentence, and applied the defendant to protective custody. In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the risk of recidivism such as the theory of lawsuit.
3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the requester for detention are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)