(a) Whether the crime of robbery and the crime of larceny constitute “a same or similar crime” as provided in the Social Protection Act;

(b) Method of aggregating concurrent crimes and prison term under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act; and

A. Since the crime of robbery and the crime of larceny are stipulated in Chapter 38 of the Criminal Act, it constitutes a crime stipulated in Article 6(2)2 of the Social Protection Act, and thus constitutes a "same or similar crime" under Article 5(1) of the Social Protection Act, since it constitutes a crime stipulated in the same Chapter of the Criminal Act.

B. The crime of robbery, injury by robbery, and habitual robbery, which the requester for the warrant of custody is punished as concurrent crimes, are committed without any injury by robbery. Therefore, in calculating the term of punishment stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Social Protection Act, the sentence to be sentenced by the opposite interpretation of Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act must be calculated.

(a)Article 5 subparagraph 1(a) of the Social Protection Act, Article 6 subparagraph 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do73, 87Do68 delivered on May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1113), 90Do2195, 90Do179 delivered on November 27, 199 (Gong1991, 292). Supreme Court Decision 83Do404 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983, 1780), 88Do289 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 593)

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Kim Yong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 93No2898 delivered on December 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the requester for defense and the state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

In light of the record, the court below’s measure is acceptable, which recognized the risk of larceny and recidivism, and maintained the first instance judgment of a protective custody subject to Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Social Protection Act, by deeming that there is a reason falling under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Social Protection Act, and there is no unlawful ground for misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for protective custody, such as the risk of recidivism, and it is not subject to protective custody on the ground that the age of the requester for protective custody is lower (the birth of April 9, 1970)

According to the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, in Seoul District Court's Dong Branch of the Seoul District Court on May 8, 1987, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of three years and six months, a long term of four years and a long term of four years and confirmed on October 28 of the same year. On May 2, 1991, the Seoul High Court may recognize that the crime of robbery and the crime of robbery are committed in violation of Article 331(2) and Article 342 of the Criminal Act (Habitual larceny) and the crime of robbery are also stipulated in Chapter 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, since the crime of robbery and the crime of larceny are also stipulated in Article 6(2)2 of the Social Protection Act, it constitutes a crime of violation under Article 5(1) or 5 of the same Act.

Meanwhile, since an applicant for protective custody was punished as concurrent crimes, the crime of robbery bodily harm and habitual robbery committed is without prison labor. Thus, in calculating the term of punishment stipulated under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Social Protection Act, the corresponding interpretation of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act must be applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do404, Oct. 25, 1983; 86Do268, Feb. 24, 1987; 88Do289, Feb. 24, 1987; 86Do289, etc.). In a case where an illegal term of punishment is sentenced for a juvenile, the minimum term of punishment shall be three years and six months, the short term of punishment imposed, and the applicant for protective custody shall not be deemed to have been sentenced to punishment for the same or a similar crime under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, and even if the application of Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the same Act cannot be deemed to have been unlawful, Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the same Act shall not apply.

It is not a legitimate ground for appeal that the prosecutor's request for protective custody only against the requester for protective custody is in violation of equity or the prosecutor's request for protective custody is not uniform.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)