Whether a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act can be taken as data for habitual recognition (affirmative)

Article 1 (b) of the Juvenile Act is stipulated in Article 32 (5) of the Juvenile Act, and the fact that a protective disposition is issued cannot be considered as data for habitual recognition.

Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 1 and 32 (5) of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Do1255 Delivered on July 24, 1973

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Osung-hwan

Seoul High Court Decision 89No1987 delivered on September 28, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

Article 1(b) and Article 32(5) of the Juvenile Act are stipulated under Article 1(5) of the Juvenile Act, and the fact that a protective disposition was issued cannot be considered as data to recognize habituality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Do1255, Jul. 24, 1973; 73Do1255, Jul. 24, 197). The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in the judgment below which recognized habituality

In addition, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal to request a disposition to the effect that a sentence of less than 10 years has been imposed.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and twenty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won