Whether it constitutes a ground for reversal in the final appeal after the sentence of an irregular sentence was rendered at the appellate court (negative)

If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of sentencing of the appellate court and was sentenced to an irregular sentence, the judgment of the appellate court which sentenced the irregular sentence is not a reason to reverse the judgment of the appellate court which sentenced the irregular sentence even if the defendant became majority

Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Do1440 decided September 29, 1989 (Gong1990, 1630) 90Do118 decided July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1840)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 90No1444 delivered on June 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by defense counsel

According to relevant evidence and records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disorder without properly examining the judgment below that the defendant had not been in a state of mental and physical disorder even though he had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime in this case. Therefore, there

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal No. 2 and Defendant’s grounds of appeal

If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the appellate court judgment was rendered and the non-permanent sentence was pronounced later, it does not constitute a reason to reverse the judgment of appeal which sentenced the non-permanent sentence even if the defendant became adult (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1440 delivered on September 29, 1989), and there is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and part of detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)