Whether a juvenile should be sentenced to an irregular term when he/she is sentenced to a limited term after he/she has selected an imprisonment for life.

In the event that a juvenile selects a sentence of imprisonment for life, even if he/she has been sentenced to limited imprisonment by means of attempted mitigation and discretionary mitigation, he/she shall not be sentenced to a sentence of regular imprisonment or a sentence of irregular imprisonment.

Articles 2 and 54 of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do933 delivered on July 29, 1969 (Kakadd 689; Supreme Court Decision 17B-127; Decision 54(6)1513 delivered on September 16, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 69Do1250 delivered on September 16, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 3631; Supreme Court Decision 15Nu17; Decision 54(4)1513 delivered on the summary of the decision)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (75 Gohap5 delivered on April 1, 201)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

70 days from the number of days of detention in the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the defendant did not have committed the crime of indictment, but the court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous as affecting the judgment, second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, first of all, the first point of appeal is examined, and in light of the records of this case, the evidence duly admitted by the court below after examining the evidence. Thus, since the defendant's principal facts are sufficiently recognized, the court below's decision to find facts is not erroneous as otherwise pointed out, and therefore, the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

The second ground for appeal is examined ex officio prior to the judgment of the court below. According to the judgment below, the defendant's attempted life sentence and discretionary mitigation after selecting the defendant in accordance with Article 250 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant was sentenced to an irregular sentence. Although the defendant was a minor, even if he was selected as a minor, he cannot be sentenced to an irregular sentence even if he was to reduce the imprisonment for life, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Articles 364 (2) and 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members shall be decided again after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The court below held that since the defendant's judgment falls under Articles 254 and 250 (2) of the Criminal Act, the defendant's judgment below constitutes prescribed imprisonment for life during the prescribed period of punishment, attempted mitigation under Articles 25 and 55 (1) 2 of the same Act, and the defendant is a minor first offender under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act in consideration of the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is a minor first offender, he shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and six months, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 70 days out of the number of days of detention in the court below under Article 57 of the same Act and shall be included in the above punishment and sentenced as the disposition.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)