Whether reduction or exemption of punishment is necessary due to imprisonment (negative)

The reduction or exemption of punishment due to the number of self-regulation stipulated in Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act belongs to the court's free discretion and is discretionary. Thus, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the government authority responsible for investigation, the court does not regard it as a reason for the mitigation of self-regulation pursuant to the above Act, but rather combine it with other circumstances, it cannot be deemed illegal even if the mitigation of punishment pursuant to Article 53 of the Criminal Act is made

Articles 52(1) and 53 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2628 delivered on December 28, 1982

Defendant

Defendants

Attorney Choi Young-do

Seoul High Court Decision 84No1514 decided July 13, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in each original sentence for 70 days.

1. The Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

The reduction or exemption of punishment due to the number of self-regulation stipulated in Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act belongs to the court's free discretion and is discretionary. Thus, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the government office responsible for investigation, the court does not regard it as a reason for the mitigation of self-regulation pursuant to the above Act, and it does not regard it as illegal even if it reduces the amount of punishment pursuant to Article 53 of the Criminal Act for the reason of

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below applied discretionary mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act by taking into account the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant voluntarily surrendered to the government authority responsible for the investigation of this case, and that a juvenile who has not committed a previous offense is divided in depth after the crime and has agreed with the victim, it is just, and it is not reasonable to argue that it is illegal to reduce discretionary mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act without mitigation of self-denunciation under Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 and the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, in this case where the court below's sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years is imposed, the defendants cannot be deemed to be illegal without a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act, and the court below's sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Thus, in light of the provisions of subparagraph 4 of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is unreasonable

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 70 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in each principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)