The judgment below

The part of the case against the defendant A and B and the part against the defendant D shall be reversed.

1. The trial scope of this Court (as to Defendant A and B), the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction with respect to the part of the Defendant’s case against Defendant A and B, and with respect to the part of the case for which the prosecutor’s request for attachment order was filed, only Defendant A and B appealed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc., this part is excluded from the scope of adjudication. Therefore, the scope of adjudication of this court against Defendant A and B is limited to the part of the judgment below against Defendant A and B.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) the lower court’s punishment (i) the sentence of imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, for a short term of two years, for a short term of 40 hours, for a short term of two years and six months, for a short term of two years, for a short term of two years, for a short term of two years, for a short term of 40 hours, for a term of : a term of two years, for a short term of one year and six months, for a short term

3. “Juvenile” subject to ex officio judgment refers to a person under 19 years of age (Article 2 of the Juvenile Act). As such, whether the Defendants are juveniles under 19 years of age at the time of judgment to be subject to the Juvenile Act, and whether they are juveniles under Articles 60(1) and 60(2) of the Juvenile Act should be determined at the time of judgment (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do539, Apr. 24, 199; 200Do2704, Aug. 18, 2008; 200Do2704, Feb. 1, 2008; 200Do2704, Feb. 20, 2008; 200Do 2704, Feb. 24, 2008; 2000Do 2704, etc.). As at the time of judgment of the lower court, the Defendants were sentenced to statutory mitigation of punishment for less than nine years of age.

4. Conclusion of the lower judgment.