The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal reasoning is that the Defendant had already received a protective disposition under Article 32 of the Juvenile Act due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) related to the instant facts charged, which constitutes a case where the instant indictment procedure is null and void in violation of Article 53 of the Juvenile Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Around July 27, 2010, around 04:20 on July 27, 2010, the Defendant, along with B, carried out a “E” game room operated by the victim D in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and B, with the network installed between the gap of glass entrance, the Defendant reported the network, and carried out part of rubber part of the rubber installed between the gap of glass entrance, and laid off a corrective device by inserting it into the game room, and carried 822,00 won in cash owned by the victim of B, who was in the second floor interchange.

As a result, the defendant stolen cash owned by the victim together with B.

3. Determination

A. Article 53 of the Juvenile Act provides that a juvenile subject to a protective disposition under Article 32 of the Juvenile Act shall not be prosecuted again or forwarded to the Juvenile Department. Thus, if a new prosecution was instituted against a case identical with a case subject to a protective disposition under Article 32 of the Juvenile Act (including concurrent crimes, such as habitual crimes), this constitutes a case subject to a protective disposition under Article 32 of the Juvenile Act, and thus, it constitutes a case subject to a prosecution procedure for violation of the Act, and thus becomes null and void, and thus, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution under Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do47, Feb. 23, 1996, etc.). (B) According to the records of the judgment, the defendant is the Government District Court Decision 2010Da2011, 2107 (Joint Crimes).