Whether Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act violates the principle of equality under the Constitution (negative)

Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act provides that when a juvenile commits a crime corresponding to a limited term of two or more years of statutory punishment, a sentence of imprisonment for a maximum and short term shall be imposed on him/her by setting a maximum and short term. It appears to be intended to achieve the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Act (see Article 1 of the Juvenile Act) to ensure the sound fostering of the juvenile by taking special measures on criminal punishment against an anti-social juvenile, and Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act provides that when a juvenile is deemed reasonable, his/her punishment may be mitigated, the above provision shall not be deemed to violate the principle of equality declared in Article 11 of the Constitution by discriminating the juvenile against his/her adult.

Articles 1, 60(1) and (2) of the Juvenile Act, Article 11 of the Constitution

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jin-hun (Korean)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2001No2265 delivered on November 15, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. 32 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by a public defender

Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act provides that when a juvenile commits a crime corresponding to a limited term of two years or more of the statutory penalty, a maximum and short term and sentence for an illegal term shall be imposed. The purpose of achieving the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Act (see Article 1 of the Juvenile Act) to promote the sound fostering of the juvenile by taking special measures on criminal punishment against an anti-social juvenile, and Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act provides that when a juvenile is deemed reasonable, the punishment may be mitigated, it shall not be deemed that the above provision violates the principle of equality declared in Article 11 of the Constitution by discriminating the juvenile against adults. We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In the case of this case where a minor sentence is imposed more than 10 years of imprisonment, the argument that the amount of punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 32 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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)