In cases where two punishments are imposed on juvenile offenders under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, whether the amount of short-term punishment exceeding five years is appropriate.

In the event that two punishments are imposed on juvenile offenders as provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, even if the sum of the short-term punishments exceeds five years, this cannot be viewed as a violation of the proviso of Article 54(1) of the Juvenile Act.

Article 54(1) of the Juvenile Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee E-jin

Daegu High Court Decision 83No766 delivered on July 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the sentencing of the court below is excessive, but in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed, the sentence of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, in light of the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

2. Defendant’s state appointed defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the crime of special robbery in Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant and the crime of special robbery in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are crimes of special larceny as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and crimes in Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of three years, a short of two years, and a short of three years and six months. Thus, if the sum of the short-term sentence exceeds five years, even if the sum of the short-term sentence exceeds five years, it cannot be deemed that the short-term sentence in the court of first instance goes against the provisions of the proviso

According to the evidence of employment of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is clear that the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance are legally recognized and the confessions in the prosecutor's office of the defendant are recognized by the defendant himself/herself in the court of first instance. Thus, there is no argument that

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)