Whether or not to reverse the judgment of the first instance in case where a juvenile at the time of rendering a judgment in the first instance has reached an appellate trial and became adult.

In a case where a person was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of a judgment in the first instance, but he reached the age of majority at the time of the appellate trial, this cannot be reversed as the judgment of the court below which sentenced an illegal sentence on the premise that he was a juvenile

Articles 2 and 54 of the Juvenile Act, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do355 Decided April 26, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 65Do1229 Decided March 3, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 3720 Decided November 14, 3720; Decision 14Nu1511 Decided April 26, 1966) (Supreme Court Decision 3697No. 3697 Decided September 6, 196, Article 2(3)100 of the Juvenile Act (Supreme Court Decision 3759 Decided November 3759); Decision 2(5)1511 Decided September 6, 1966

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants and the Prosecutor ( All the Defendants)

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (76Gohap48)

The part concerning Defendant 1, 2, and 3 in the original judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years and six months, and by imprisonment for a maximum of three years and three years, respectively.

One hundred and seventy-five days of detention days before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the sentence of the defendant, etc.

The excessive one (No. 1) seized shall be forfeited from Defendant 2.

Defendant 4 and Prosecutor’s appeal are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 is as follows: first, the defendant did not know that the defendant was unable to stop the so-called special robbery; first, the property taken by the defendant was outdoorly taken out; the court below erred by misunderstanding that the defendant had an effect on the judgment in the case of a special robbery. Second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1, 3, and 4 as well as his defense counsel and defense counsel of the defendant et al. (the defendant 4's defense counsel and the defendant 3 are too heavy when considering that all the defendant et al. voluntarily surrenders, the sentence amount is too excessive) is unfair, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is so unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant et al. is too unreasonable (the defendant 2's defense counsel and the defendant 3 are clear that the period for submitting the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2 is after the limit of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel).

Therefore, in light of the records, the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1, the first ground for appeal by the defense counsel, was examined in full, and the evidence duly adopted by the court below after examining the evidence, can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error of law as otherwise pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and thus, the ground for appeal as to mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

However, the judgment of the court below was made ex officio on August 12, 1956 by Defendant 2, who was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the decision of the court below, but the adult has reached the trial, so the judgment of the court which sentenced the non-scheduled sentence on the premise that the juvenile is the juvenile cannot be maintained as it is. Thus, the judgment on the defendant should not be reversed without judging the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.

Next, in regard to the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel and the remaining defendants (excluding Defendant 2), his defense counsel, etc., and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing, as well as the grounds for appeal on each of the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing by the defendant 1’s defense counsel, in consideration of various circumstances, including the following factors: the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below against the defendant 4 did not consider that the amount of punishment against the defendant 1 and the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant 1 and the prosecutor’s appeal cannot be accepted, but the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant 1 and the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant 3 should not be accepted, since it is considered that the amount of punishment against the defendant 1 and the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant 3 is too excessive and unfair. Accordingly, there is a reason for

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 4 and the defendant shall be dismissed, but with respect to the defendant 2, 1, and 3, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the decision shall be rendered again after the pleadings are made by each party member.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3 recognized as a party member's member's each criminal facts and the summary of the evidence are as stated in each corresponding case of the lower judgment, and therefore, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The so-called judgment by Defendant 1, 2, and 3 on the law is the first sentence of Article 34(2) of the Criminal Code. Since the court below's decision falls under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Code, there is a reason to take into account the circumstances such as the fact that the first sentence was completely divided after the crime, and the fact that the situation is obvious after the crime, etc., it shall be sentenced within the scope of the punishment to be mitigated under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code. However, since Defendant 1 is a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, Article 54(1) of the same Act applies Article 54(1) of the same Act and Article 57 of the Criminal Code, Defendant 2, and 3 are punished by imprisonment for a short term of 3 years and 2 years and 3 years, and each sentence of imprisonment for a limited term of 175 days before the sentence is included in the number of detention days before the court below's sentence of Article 57 of the Criminal Code.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)