[특수강도,특수강도미수][공1994.11.1.(979),2911]
Whether reduction under Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act is necessary or not;
Reduction of Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act is not necessary, but belongs to the discretion of the court.
Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Lee Jae-soo
Seoul High Court Decision 94No1098 delivered on June 16, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. 95 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
In this case where a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of four years and a short term of three years is imposed on the defendant, the grounds of unfair sentencing may not be a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act. There is
2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel.
The mitigation under Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act is not necessary, but belongs to the court's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do321, Apr. 27, 1990). Thus, the court below did not reduce the term under the Juvenile Act and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.
In addition, even if the theory of lawsuit does not require reduction under the Juvenile Act, if it is unfair to refuse to reduce it in light of all the sentencing conditions of the case, it is not nothing more than that of claiming unfair sentencing, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal. There is no ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)