The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it violates Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act to sentence 20 years of imprisonment with prison labor for concurrent crimes after choosing a limited term for the defendant who is a minor at the time of sentence;

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it violates Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act which limits the maximum term and the minimum term of imprisonment for a limited term not less than 10 years, and Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act which limits the minimum term of imprisonment for a limited term of not less than 2 years, on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment for a limited term of not less than 20 years was imposed on the defendant who is a minor at the time of sentence of death was imposed.

Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants

Attorney Lee Yong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 90No2559 delivered on November 15, 1990

All appeals by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed.

The number of days under detention before and after the final appeal shall be 60 days each included in the penalty of the original judgment against the defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The lower judgment against Defendant 6 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6's violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the facts constituting the robbery committed by Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6, the forgery of private documents by Defendant 6, the uttering of the above investigation documents, the crime of fraud, and the robbery by Defendant 2 as explained by the first instance court are sufficiently pride in light of relevant evidence, and the judgment of the lower court's evidence preparation and finding of facts are all correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal theory in rejecting the argument that the lower court was forced to act by Defendant 5.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 1 had a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. As to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is not deemed reasonable in light of the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is not deemed that the above issues are unreasonable and unreasonable. Therefore, each of the above arguments is groundless.

3. However, prior to the determination of the grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing by Defendant 6, Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act provides that when a juvenile commits a crime punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of two years or more, the term and the short term shall be determined and sentenced within the scope of the punishment, but the maximum of ten years shall not exceed five years. The court below decided to punish Defendant 6’s robbery as a punishment for murder pursuant to the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, and decided to punish the two-year limited term under the proviso of the same Act, and then selected the two-year limited term of imprisonment for each of the crimes of murder, the remaining crimes, the document forgery, and the uttering of the above investigation document are in substantial concurrent crimes, and thus, the defendant is punished within the limited term of imprisonment for a limited term of 20 years. The court below sentenced Defendant 6 to imprisonment for a limited term of 2 or more years as stated in the above provision of the Juvenile Act, which does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. This decision of the court below is reversed the above two-year limited term of 2 or more.

4. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5's appeals are without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and part of the number of days of detention pending trial against Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5's appeal is to be included in the original sentence of the lower judgment against them. However, Defendant 6's appeal is with merit, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reverse the same part of the lower judgment against the Defendant and remand this part to the lower court for a new trial.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)