beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's respective punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and eight hours of social service) against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Prior to the judgment of the prosecutor's ex officio as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant C, the term "juvenile" under Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act means a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act unless there is a special provision, and the term "juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act" means a person under the age of 19 who is under the age of 19 and is under the condition of the trial, and it must continue until the time of the trial as well as the time of the crime. Therefore, in principle, the judgment as to whether a juvenile is a juvenile under Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act shall be based on the time of the judgment at the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2704, Aug. 18, 200). According to the records, it is apparent that the defendant as a AG student was a juvenile under the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below, but at the time of this judgment, it is no longer possible to maintain the judgment under the law mitigation against
3. As to the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant D, even though the defendant had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition several times after the traffic accident, the defendant suffered injury in need of medical treatment for about two weeks by opening a passenger vehicle door after receiving a lower demand after the traffic accident. Furthermore, from those who have lost or stolen cell phones with the above defendant C, they committed the crime of this case under several Acts, which was committed nine times or more by taking advantage of a cell phone inspection from those who have sold the cell phone and run away with the above defendant C, and the crime of this case was committed as they were committed. In light of the circumstances and contents leading to the above crime, the nature of the crime is not good, and the amount of damage caused by special larceny and the number of times of the crime is not significant.
However, the defendant.