Whether the fact that a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act was issued can be evidence to recognize habitualness (affirmative)

Since there is no restriction on the data to recognize habituality, the fact that the juvenile is subject to a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act in the past can also be considered as data to recognize habituality.

Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do1255 Decided July 24, 1973 (No. 1987, 594) 86Do2725 Decided February 24, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-chul

Gwangju High Court Decision 90No29 delivered on March 30, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

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

Since there is no restriction on the data to recognize habituality, it is the opinion of party members that the defendant can use the fact that he was subject to a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act in the past as data to recognize habituality (see the Supreme Court Decision 73Do1255 delivered on July 24, 1973).

In this respect, it is unreasonable to argue that the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with it.

In addition, this paper argues that the defendant will be sentenced to a regular sentence because he/she is an adult, but this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 35 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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)