The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) Inasmuch as the Defendant committed a criminal offense as a juvenile under the age of 16 at the time of the instant crime, even though not falling under the promotional juvenile of the Juvenile Act or the friendly juvenile of the Juvenile Act (see Article 4(1)2 and 3 of the Juvenile Act), the chief of the police station committed an error of sending the case to the Juvenile Department.

② Article 53 of the Juvenile Act does not apply to the prosecution of this case since the prosecution of this case was already instituted prior to the decision of juvenile protective disposition against the defendant.

③ Only part of the charges of assault, which is part of the facts charged in the instant case, is included in the criminal facts subject to juvenile protective disposition, and the remainder of detention and injury are not included.

Ultimately, since the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged subject to juvenile protective disposition are significantly different from the date, time, place, means and method, and the benefit and protection of the damaged legal interests, the identity of basic facts is not recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the prosecution against the defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Where only the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a judgment of not guilty or partially guilty of a part of concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment in this court, the part of the judgment of not guilty which became final and conclusive as the period for appeal has expired, and the part of the judgment of not guilty which was pending before the appellate court, and accordingly, the part of the judgment of not guilty shall be reversed when it is reversed at the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992). The court below dismissed the public prosecution against the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) among the facts charged, and the Ulsan Family Court's judgment against the custody of stolen goods.