Main Issues
Whether it constitutes a ground for reversal in the final appeal after the sentence of an irregular sentence was rendered at the appellate court (negative)
Summary of Judgment
If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of sentencing in the appellate court and was sentenced to an irregular sentence, the judgment of the appellate court which sentenced the fraudulent sentence is not a ground for reversal even if the defendant became adult.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 89Do1440 Decided September 29, 1989 (Gong1990, 1630) decided July 27, 1990
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney Kim Jong-chul
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No1908 delivered on April 24, 1990
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by defense counsel
According to relevant evidence and records, it is clear that the defendant was not in the state of or weak ability to distinguish things under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment below. Thus, there is no reason to discuss this issue.
2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defense counsel and the grounds of appeal by the defendant
If the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of sentencing of the appellate court and was sentenced to an irregular sentence, it does not constitute a ground for reversal of the judgment of appeal which pronounced an irregular sentence even if the defendant became adult. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and part of detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)