beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment with prison labor for defendant D.
Reasons
1. The sentencing of the lower court (the short-term one year and the short-term one year and eight months of imprisonment; the defendant C: the long-term one year and six months of imprisonment; the defendant D: the long-term one year and one year of imprisonment; the short-term one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A and the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes, and there is no record of criminal punishment; Defendant A had no record of participation in the instant crimes; Defendant A had no record of criminal punishment; Defendant A committed the instant crimes; Defendant A committed an additional crime without permission in addition to the instant crimes; Defendant A committed the instant crimes; Defendant A’s age, environment, personality and conduct, and motive of the Defendants’ act; Defendant A’s motive and circumstances; and Defendant A’s records and circumstances after the instant crime are considered to be unfair, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants left a mental state that makes it impossible for the victims to live together; and (b) the nature of the crime is not very good; and (c) the method is also closely and systematically organized; (d) Defendant C was led to the instant crime; and (c) Defendant C committed the instant crime without permission; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct; (e) the motive and circumstances of the instant crime; and (e) the part of the lower court’s judgment’s records and circumstances after the instant crime.
B. B. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant D’s Defendant was made, the Defendant, as a student of AG, was no longer a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of rendering a final judgment, and thus, cannot be sentenced to an illegal sentence under Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, as it did not constitute a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act. Thus, the lower judgment against the Defendant became no longer maintained.
Supreme Court Decision 199Do448 delivered on April 1, 1990