(b) Larceny;

(c) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act provides that “The sentence of an illegal sentence against a juvenile shall be imposed to a juvenile by taking special measures against criminal punishment against the juvenile, thereby helping the sound growth of the juvenile.” Thus, it does not constitute an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality under the Constitution or the freedom of conscience of the judge (see Supreme Court Decision 78Do2793, Jan. 23, 1979).” The judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant who is a juvenile to an illegal sentence does not constitute an unlawful ground, such as violation of the Constitution, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by failing to consider the fact that the court below was sentenced to a suspended sentence in the prior final and conclusive judgment of the defendant who is a juvenile in sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is granted, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too

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

Justices Shin Young-young

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae