Where he/she has become adult after a judgment of appellate court was rendered and an irregular term;

If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of sentencing, and was sentenced to an irregular sentence, then the judgment of appeal which sentenced to an irregular sentence is not a reason to reverse the judgment of appeal which sentenced to an unlawful sentence even if he became an adult.

Articles 2 and 54 of the Juvenile Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do1721 delivered on October 8, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Do2064 Delivered on November 25, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 89No1193 delivered on June 22, 1989

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 grounds of appeal by defense counsel

If the evidence adopted by the first instance court as cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, the defendant can recognize the fact of theft of another person's property habitually, and there is no reason to discuss it.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time when the appellate court rendered a judgment and was sentenced to an irregular sentence, it does not constitute a ground for reversal of the judgment of appeal which pronounced an irregular sentence even if the defendant became adult. Thus, there is no reason for discussion.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)