The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act provides that Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act imposes an irregular sentence on a juvenile is a system to assist the sound growth of a juvenile by taking special measures against criminal punishment against a juvenile, and thus, it does not constitute an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality under the Constitution or the freedom of conscience of a judge.

(See Supreme Court Decision 78Do2793 delivered on January 23, 1979). The judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant as a juvenile to an illegal sentence cannot be deemed as having any 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 did not consider the fact that the defendant, who was a juvenile, was sentenced to a suspended sentence in the preceding final and conclusive judgment, constitutes an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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