Criteria for determining the risk of recidivism under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

"Risk of re-offending" under Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a case where it is highly probable that the requester for the re-offending will commit a crime again in the future. In determining the risk of re-offending, the strict determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character, family relation, property level, criminal record, opening circumstances, etc., such as the defendant's age, character, degree of property, circumstances of criminal records, motive and method of the crime, and time interval with the previous crime

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do48 delivered on June 24, 1986, 86Do156 delivered on September 9, 1986

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 86No21 delivered on April 4, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Article 5 (2) of the Social Protection Act refers to a case where it is highly probable that the requester for a warrant of re-offending will commit a crime again in the future. In determining the risk of re-offending, the strict determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character, family relation, property level, criminal record, situation such as the opening of the crime, motive and method of the crime subject to protective custody, and time interval with the previous crime.

According to the judgment of the court below, after completing the final sentence of November 1, 1981, the applicant for protective custody was released from the original sentence, and around that time, the defendant had been engaged in external activities as an agent of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. from that time to November 1, 1984, and has faithfully supported her old age, wife and consciousness. The monthly income of the defendant in this case has difficulties in treating her child (12)'s speech disorder and hearing disability, and it was hard for the defendant to find that the defendant had sold the goods to the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, and it was hard for the defendant to find that the defendant had tried to temporarily stop her work with the temporary impulse to prepare treatment expenses, and even if she had finished 7 years and 7 months since the release, it was hard for the defendant to find that he had been engaged in the defendant's temporary rehabilitation from that time to her old age, and it was hard to find that the defendant had been engaged in the defendant's efforts to return to society for 7 years and more than 16 months.

However, the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the records, it is acknowledged that all the applicants for the protection of a person subject to the protection were convicted of habitual theft, etc., whose total term of punishment is not more than 7 years and 7 months, and that there are almost all the crimes committed larceny by retailing in a bus, and that the relevant method is identical. The crime of this case also was committed by the applicants for the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person under the protection of a person

In such a case, the court below's prior conviction relation, the number of crimes, the motive, means, methods, etc. of the crime of this case should be examined more closely, and the risk of re-offending should be determined. However, the court below's decision that did not reach such a conclusion should be determined by misapprehending the legal principles on the risk of re-offending, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or preventing the violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)