In a case where the revised Juvenile Act was enforced during the appellate trial on the judgment sentenced to an irregular sentence in the first instance trial and the judgment of the appellate court was already rendered not to be a juvenile under the new law, the measures to be taken by the court (=ordinary sentence)

The amended Juvenile Act amended the definition of “juvenile” under Article 2 from “less than 20 years of age” to “under 19 years of age” under Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act, which also applies to criminal cases under trial at the time of the enforcement of the above Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act. The first instance court recognized Defendant as a juvenile under Article 2 of the former Juvenile Act (amended by Act No. 8722 of Dec. 21, 2007) and sentenced him/her an irregular sentence pursuant to Article 60(1) of the former Juvenile Act, and the revised Juvenile Act was in force during the appellate trial, and the Defendant was already under the age of 19 and became not a juvenile under the amended Juvenile Act as of the date of the final judgment of the appellate court, the appellate court should sentence the Defendant to a regular sentence.

Articles 2 and 60(1) of the former Juvenile Act (Amended by Act No. 8722, Dec. 21, 2007); Article 2 of the Juvenile Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007No3284 Decided August 22, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

The first instance court recognized the defendant as a juvenile under Article 2 of the former Juvenile Act (amended by Act No. 8722 of Dec. 21, 2007), and sentenced an irregular sentence under Article 60(1) of the former Juvenile Act. On the ground of unfair sentencing, the defendant appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, but the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment by dismissing the defendant's appeal. However, as the Act amended by Act No. 8722 was enforced on June 22, 2008, as stipulated in Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Act, the definition of "juvenile" under Article 2 of the amended Juvenile Act was amended from "under 20 years of age" to "under 19 years of age." The provision applies to this case, which is a criminal case under trial at the time of the enforcement of the same Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act, and the defendant did not err in the judgment of the lower court against the defendant under Article 208 of the former Juvenile Act, which was sentenced on February 10, 20, 198.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)