In the case of sentence of an irregular term, whether there is a standard for the range of short term punishment

Since there was no statutory provision regarding the period and the short-term width when sentencing a non-term sentence under Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, there was no error of law by wrong interpretation of Article 54 of the Juvenile Act on the ground that the long-term period of sentence imposed on the defendant who is a juvenile is three years, and the short-term is only six months and six months, and that the width is only six months.

Article 54 of the Juvenile Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Chang-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 82No1007 delivered on October 27, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

According to Article 54 of the Juvenile Act, when a juvenile commits a crime punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of two years or more, a maximum and short term shall be determined and sentenced within the scope of the statutory penalty.

However, the judgment of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant who habitually committed the crime of larceny and attempted larceny in accordance with Articles 5-4(1), 329 and 342 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the imprisonment for a maximum of three years and six years and six months under Article 342 of the Criminal Act is just and the short of ten years and the short of ten years can not be deemed to be erroneous in the interpretation of Article 54 of the Juvenile Act on the ground that there is no error of law by mistake in the interpretation of Article 54 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The gist of the above grounds of appeal is that the appeal was filed in order to go in prison as a result of a failure to go in prison, and this is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)