beta
Main Issues
The criteria for determining "risk of re-offending" under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act.
Summary of Judgment
Since the risk of re-offending under Article 5(2) of the Social Protection Act refers to the high probability that the requester for re-offending will commit a crime in the future, such determination shall be made strictly by taking into account various circumstances such as the defendant's age, family relation, environment, occupation, motive, method of crime, criminal records, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 84Do81 delivered on September 11, 1984, 86Do156 delivered on September 9, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do133 delivered on December 9, 1986
Applicant for Custody
Applicant for Custody
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu High Court Decision 87No636,87No85 delivered on June 25, 1987
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The risk of re-offending under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to the high probability that the requester for re-offending will commit a crime in the future, and the determination of whether or not there is such possibility shall be made strict determination by taking into account various circumstances such as the defendant's age, family relation, environment, occupation, motive, method of crime, criminal records, contingentness and seriousness of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.
In this case, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its holding, and considering all such circumstances, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles as to the risk of re-offending, such as the process of proof or the theory of judgment, in light of the records. We cannot accept the argument.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)