logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1990. 7. 27. 선고 90도1118 판결
[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][공1990.9.15.(880),1840]
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)

arrow