Where the same kind of crime sentenced for concurrent crimes is more than that of the same kind of crime in concurrent relations, the method of adding to the period of punishment for calculation of protective custody.

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act provides that when a crime other than a crime of the same or similar kind of crime is punished as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, even if the crime is punished as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, if the punishment for the same or similar crime is the most serious, the sentence imposed shall be added to

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 83No551, 83No110 Decided June 15, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. In light of the records, the court below did not find out that there was a bruent substance in the process that recognized the date of birth of the requester for the warranting disposition as April 25, 1934, and the court below's measure that did not apply the latter part of Article 5 (1) of the Social Protection Act because it is apparent that the date of birth was not yet 50 years of age, as long as the date of birth was recognized by the court below. Thus, there is no ground for appeal on this point.

2. According to Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act, the term of punishment under Article 5(1)1 of the Act shall be the period of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor sentenced (former part of subparagraph 1), and Articles 37 and 40 of the Criminal Act concurrently competes with crimes other than the same or similar crimes, and when the punishment for a crime other than the same or similar crime is most severe, one half of the sentence sentenced shall be the term of punishment (former part of subparagraph 2). Thus, in calculating the term of punishment under Article 5(1)1 of the Social Protection Act when the most severe punishment under the same or similar crime is imposed for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, other than the same or similar crime, if the person subject to request for detention is the most severe punishment under Article 5(1)1 of the same Act, the term of punishment should be added to all the crimes under Article 5(1)1 of the same Act. According to records, imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years sentenced on October 11, 1977>

However, if a petitioner for the custody of a defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months on July 30, 1958, the crime of special larceny, fabrication of official document, and fabrication of the same crime was identical to the statutory punishment, and the crime of fabrication of official document and uttering of the same crime was committed in the nature of the crime and crime, only 1/2 of the term of punishment should be calculated in accordance with Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act of this case pursuant to Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act of this case. However, even if 9 months of the term of punishment being 1/2 of the term of punishment were added up, the requester for the custody of a defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny of 10 months on September 23, 1968 and October 28, 1970, if all three-year imprisonment with prison labor for the same or similar crime were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of 10 years on the same or similar crime, it does not exceed 5 years of the term of punishment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)