The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Unless otherwise provided, the term “juvenile” under Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act refers to “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, and “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act refers to a person under 19 years of age.

Here, a person under the age of 19 is the condition of the trial, and must continue to exist not only when the crime is committed but also until the trial is conducted.

Therefore, whether a case constitutes “juvenile” subject to Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act ought to be determined at the time of adjudication, i.e., a trial court’s ruling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do7112, Jul. 27, 2016). Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the records, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to an irregular sentence, but the lower court did not constitute “juvenile” under the Juvenile Act.

On the other hand, it is just to render a regular sentence against the defendant, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and argued only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment of joint crimes is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for sentencing, thereby violating Article 51 (Conditions for Sentencing) of the Criminal Act or violating the law regarding the suspended sentence constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is also legitimate.