Whether protective custody disposition violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or the principle of non-payment in law

Protective custody disposition under the Social Protection Act is not contrary to the principle of res judicata or the principle of legal non-payment.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 12 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1070, 83Do208 Decided June 28, 1983, 85Do2511, 85Do372 Decided January 28, 1986

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Yong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 85No3076, 85No384 Decided December 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for thirty days.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In full view of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime and the facts corresponding to the requirements for protective custody as stated in its reasoning. The judgment of the court below contains no errors in finding habitualness and finding facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it is a party member's precedent that a protective custody disposition does not violate the principle of res judicata or the principle of no prosecution in law (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1070, 83Do208, Jun. 28, 1983).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are to include part of detention days after the appeal in imprisonment.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)