Protective disposition against juvenile offenders and court's discretion

It is a matter to be judged at the discretion of judge to determine whether there is a reason to be subject to a protective disposition according to the result of the trial of the accused case against the juvenile.

Article 32 of the Juvenile Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4540, Oct. 12, 1990) (Law No. 1990, 2341)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Do Il-sung et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90No2223 delivered on October 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the supplemental appellate brief for which the deadline for submitting the appellate brief expired is examined to the extent of supplement in case of paragraph (2)).

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance (in particular, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of all crimes in the court of first instance) maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the special robbery of this case is committed by the defendant, and as to the judgment sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of three years and imprisonment for a short of two years and six months as in this case, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is extremely unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by a public defender

In sum, considering the fact that a defendant's primary crime is minor and the degree of crime is against the wrongness after committing the crime, a protective disposition should be imposed rather than a sentence imposed on the defendant in light of Article 1 and Article 4 (1) 1 of the Juvenile Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to a protective disposition should be reversed and the defendant should be sentenced to a protective disposition. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is unreasonable.

However, this case's sentencing cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal on the grounds that the sentencing of punishment is unreasonable, and it is not reasonable to accept the review of this case's judgment, since the court which deliberated on the defendant's case with respect to the juvenile is judged at the discretion of the judge as to whether there is a reason to constitute a protective disposition based on the result of the review of the case's judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1760 delivered on October 12, 190).

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence of the judgment of the first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)