Whether a minor may be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for an irregular period by discretionary mitigation after choosing life imprisonment from among statutory punishment (negative)

In a case where a sentence of imprisonment is imposed as a result of discretionary mitigation after the choice of life imprisonment among the statutory penalty, even if the defendant is a minor, it cannot be sentenced to an irregular sentence. Therefore, there is no illegality of wrong interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the Juvenile Act in a judgment imposing a ten-year regular sentence of imprisonment by choosing life imprisonment among the statutory penalty and reducing the amount of imprisonment.

Articles 59 and 60 of the Juvenile Act, Article 53 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do318 decided Apr. 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 815) 89Do522 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989, 940) 90Do2083 decided Oct. 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2474)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney White-gu (for the defendant)

Daegu High Court Decision 90No697 delivered on January 16, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The 30 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

Defendants and their state appointed defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

(1) According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, since the legal action cited by Defendant 1 cannot be accepted, since Defendant 1's decision at the time of first trial against Defendant 1 and the criminal facts can be sufficiently recognized. (2) In a case where Defendant 1 was sentenced to limited imprisonment as a result of discretionary mitigation after choosing life imprisonment from among statutory punishment, even if Defendant 1 was a minor, it cannot be sentenced to an irregular sentence. Thus, Defendant 1’s decision of first instance which sentenced Defendant 1 to a limited term of ten years after choosing a life imprisonment for the prescribed period of the crime of robbery, and the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the sentence, which sentenced Defendant 1 to a limited term of ten years by discretionary mitigation, is not erroneous in the interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the Juvenile Act, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and it seems that the sentence imposed on the Defendants is excessive even after examining the circumstances on the conditions of sentencing by records. Therefore, we cannot accept this point.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)