Where a sentence shall be imposed for juvenile offenders.

The court below recognized murder crime against the defendant who is a juvenile, and sentenced the defendant to a maximum of 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term of 10 years after choosing the term of imprisonment with prison labor, but according to Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, the illegal term of imprisonment does not exceed 10 years of a maximum of 10 years, and there is no room for sentencing a maximum of 10 years of a maximum of 5 years of a maximum of 10 years of a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor

Article 54 of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do967 delivered on December 7, 1965

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (71Gohap38)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for fifteen years.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the original sentence.

Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant

In spite of the fact that the Defendant was under the so-called mental condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, the lower court neglected it as it was and caused inevitable results in the Defendant’s attempt to commit an injury to the Defendant, which constitutes an excessive defense, and thus, it should be mitigated or exempted from the punishment. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was subject to the charge of murder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

According to the records in light of the records, although the defendant is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, it is not recognized that the degree was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder, and it is not recognized that it constitutes excessive defense, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and therefore, it is not acceptable to discuss the judgment of the court below against the mistake of fact or accept it.

The second point of the defendant's appeal grounds and the second point of his defense counsel's appeal grounds are that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable, and that it is unfair that the punishment is too unfeasible to the prosecutor's appeal grounds.

However, the court below, upon ex officio, sentenced a minor defendant to a punishment for an irregular term, and sentenced him to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 15 years after choosing a life imprisonment for the prescribed term under Article 250(1). According to Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, the punishment for an irregular term may not exceed 10 years and the short term may not exceed 5 years, and when selecting a life imprisonment for the prescribed term during the prescribed term, there is no room to impose an irregular term by applying Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, without examining the above unfair sentencing, party members reverse the judgment of the court below under Articles 364 (6) and 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by the prosecutor's appeal and render a decision again as follows.

The criminal facts and evidence against the defendant admitted as a member of the party shall be cited as they are, except where the statement consistent with the facts at the time of original adjudication in the court room of the defendant is added as evidence, since all of the judgment of the court below are the same.

On the other hand, since the court below's judgment falls under Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant's judgment below constitutes a prescribed sentence of life imprisonment, and it is recognized that there is a reason to consider the situation as a first offender's juvenile after choosing the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. Thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 15 years within the scope of the term of punishment, applying Articles 53 and 55 (1) 2 of the same Act, and 150 days out of the number of detention days before the sentence of the court below is included in the above sentence of punishment under

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Yong-su (Presiding Judge)