Cases in which a sentence of death penalty or imprisonment for life is sentenced under Article 54 of the Juvenile Act with respect to a crime of death penalty or imprisonment for life;

In a case where the statutory penalty is limited to death penalty or imprisonment for life, even if the penalty is imposed on a limited penalty as a result of discretionary mitigation, it is not when the crime of imprisonment for a limited term of at least two years under Article 54 of the former Juvenile Act (amended by Act No. 4057, Dec. 31, 88) is committed, and thus, the defendant cannot be punished with an irregular sentence, and a regular punishment shall be imposed within the mitigated scope.

Article 2 Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, Article 338 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorneys Lee Jae-sung et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 65No218 delivered on October 5, 1965

The original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

120 days out of the number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance shall be included in the original sentence.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 and the gist of the first ground of appeal by Kim Jong-tae, based on the original judgment, denies the fact resulting from robbery and argued that there was a mistake of mistake in the original judgment, and there was an error of law in the application of law on this premise. However, compared to the records on all the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the original judgment, if examined, it can be recognized that the fact resulting from robbery can be recognized. Since there was no doubt that the court below erred in the facts or erred in the application of law, it is without merit

The grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defense counsel

The court below's argument that the amount of punishment of the court below is unreasonable is not that the court below imposed an illegal sentence against the defendant, but that the result of sentencing of the court below is unreasonable, as stated in the following ex officio decision, and thus the argument is eventually justified.

ex officio Doctrine

According to the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the original judgment, the first instance court decided that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of 5 years pursuant to Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, since the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, and the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of 10 years pursuant to Article 54 of the same Act.

However, even if the statutory punishment is limited to death penalty or life imprisonment, if the punishment is imposed upon a limited person, as a result of the reduction of the amount of punishment, the organic punishment is not when the crime corresponding to the limited term of two or more years as stipulated in Article 54 of the Juvenile Act is committed, and thus, the defendant cannot be punished with an irregular term, and even though the court of first instance has to impose a regular term within the mitigated scope, it cannot be illegal that the first instance has sentenced an irregular term, and the original judgment was dismissed with excessive punishment, and it is obvious that this affected the result of the judgment, and therefore, the original judgment and the first instance judgment are reversed and the final judgment are directly decided by the principal court pursuant to Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Criminal Procedure Act Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Act Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act are the same as the case of the first instance court.

The so-called the judgment of the defendant in the law is that the defendant is not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 7 years under Articles 53 and 55 of the Criminal Act, because the defendant is not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 5 years, since the defendant is not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 7 years under Article 53 of the same Act, since he is not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 5 years under Article 57 of the same Act, and the special larceny and special larceny which was sentenced by the Seoul Criminal Court on May 14, 196 are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the same Act, and the defendant is recognized as a juvenile who has not yet received property pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the same Act. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 5 years prior to the pronouncement of sentence.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro