Whether a statutory penalty for a juvenile can be sentenced to an illegal term imprisonment with prison labor when he/she is sentenced only to life imprisonment.

Where the defendant is a juvenile, even if the statutory penalty is mitigated to imprisonment for a crime limited to death penalty or imprisonment for life, it may not be sentenced to imprisonment for a limited term by Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, and a fixed term sentence shall be sentenced.

Articles 53 and 54 of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Do1 delivered on July 14, 1964 (Daad 4124 delivered on July 14, 1964; 12B-1 delivered on July 1, 197; 25Do901 delivered on November 23, 1965 (Daad 3860; 13B-61 delivered on November 23, 1965; 201Da1513 delivered on November 23, 1965)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap82)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

75 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the original sentence.

First of all, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant was not able to repent his father who saluted with frequent gambling, but was able to conceal his illegal behaviors, and his father who was locked and was suffering from two saluteds that require medical treatment for about five weeks, and the method of the crime was extremely bad and did not peep his openings after the crime. In light of various circumstances, the defendant should be punished strictly in general, even though he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of five years, a long term of five years and six months. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of five years and five years and six months, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel was unreasonable, and the defendant did not have any intention to kill his father, and even if the defendant was committed at a low resistance against his father, it was considered that he did not have any influence on the defendant's attempted crime, and even if he did not have any influence on the defendant's age of punishment, it did not change his age.

Therefore, in full view of all the evidence in the records as to each of the first grounds for appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime at the time of original testimony, and there is no error of mistake of facts such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below.

However, even in the case of a crime the statutory penalty for which is limited to death penalty or life imprisonment, even if the punishment is imposed by abandonment, it cannot be imposed by the Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, and a regular sentence shall be imposed within the scope of mitigation, despite the fact that the court below sentenced the defendant to an illegal sentence under Article 54 of the Juvenile Act is a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the court below's decision on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the judgment is again decided as follows.

The criminal facts and evidence relations acknowledged by a member of the party are the same as those indicated in the judgment of the court below, except for the case where the statement consistent with the original facts in the party proceedings of the defendant is added as evidence.

On the other hand, since the court below's judgment falls under Articles 254 and 130 (2) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant's judgment in the court below constitutes the prescribed life imprisonment sentence after choosing the prescribed life imprisonment sentence, and the crime was completed, pursuant to Articles 25 (2) and 55 (1) 2 of the same Act, the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant is a juvenile and has committed an excessive act beyond the degree of his father's decoration, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without any separation before and after his learning, the defendant's additional punishment was completed, and the victim's additional punishment was divided in depth, and the defendant's whole expenses was also divided in depth, and thus, it can be taken into account such circumstances as the situation of his opening, and therefore, the defendant's imprisonment within the scope of his prison term reduced pursuant to Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be included in the imprisonment under Article 57 of the same Act and five days prior to his imprisonment under Article 57 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Yong-so (Presiding Judge)