The risk of recidivism and the crime committed in the last three years and six months after the end of the sentence;

It cannot be said that there is no risk of re-offending solely on the ground that the crime in this case is a re-offending of the last three years and six months from the expiration date of the punishment.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Kim Chang-hoon

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1066,83No245 delivered on November 1, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined together.

Examining the trial evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with records, the court below's decision that recognized the criminal facts against the defendant is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no doubt that there is no risk of re-offending solely on the ground that the crime was re-offending at the expiration date of three years and six months from the expiration date of the final sentence. Further, since the crime in this case was not acknowledged to have been committed in the state of mental disorder or weakness, it is obvious that the defendant was not a legitimate ground of appeal in the case of this case

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)