The case which accepted the appeal against the defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing by the defendant who was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor as a juvenile remaining 16 years old at the time of committing robbery and reversed both the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the Supreme Court, and sentenced 12 years of imprisonment with prison labor

The case reversing the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant on the ground that the sentencing of the court of first instance, which maintained the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 15 years, is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances in which the defendant was a juvenile who was 16 years old at the time of committing the robbery, and the situation in which the defendant agreed with his bereaved family members at the time of appeal and the balance of sentencing with the above defendants who are accomplices, was committed, and sentenced to 12 years of

Article 338 of the Criminal Act; Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Lee Han-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 91No683 delivered on May 30, 1991

Defendant 2 and 3’s appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 120 days each included in the original sentence of the said Defendants.

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant 1 are reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for 12 years.

85 days of detention before a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendants and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

Even if the defendants were only the conspiracy of robbery at the beginning, if the defendants murdered the victim during the course of committing the crime, he cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of robbery, and if the court below found that the defendants had the awareness of murder by examining the means of the crime of this case and the evidence adopted by the court below, which caused the victim to cut up 4 times or knife with a snife, beer, beer, and beer and beer, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the robbery or robbery without any evidence.

In full view of the overall circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendants’ character and conduct, age, environment, motive, method, and circumstance after the crime of this case, Defendant 2’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years, and Defendant 3’s imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years, it is not deemed that the lower court’s sentencing was excessively unfair. However, considering the circumstances where Defendant 1 was a juvenile remaining 16 years old at the time of the crime of this case, and the situation where the victim’s bereaved family members agreed with the victim at the time of the final appeal of this case and the balance of sentencing with the above defendants, the lower court’s sentencing, which maintained the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years, is deemed unfair.

Therefore, all appeals by Defendants 2 and 3 are without merit, and each of them is dismissed, and one hundred and twenty days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the said Defendants. Defendant 1’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below against the said Defendant is reversed, and this case is remanded to the court below because it is sufficient to render a direct judgment by its members based on the records of trial. As seen above, since the sentencing of the said Defendant is unfair, the appeal by the said Defendant is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is also reversed, and the

The facts constituting a crime and the testimony of evidence against Defendant 1 are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The so-called "defluence" in the law, and the so-called of the defendant's ruling falls under Article 338. 30 of the Criminal Act, and the so-called "life imprisonment" is selected, but the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years within the scope of a statutory mitigation under Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act and Article 55 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, and 85 days out of the number of detention days before the judgment of the court of first instance is sentenced shall be included in

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)