In a case where a determinate sentence ought to be handed down as majority is attained by the criminal defendant in the appellate trial where the criminal defendant alone appealed after the criminal defendant, who corresponded to a juvenile at the tim...
In a case where a determinate sentence ought to be handed down as majority is attained by the criminal defendant in the appellate trial where the criminal defendant alone appealed after the criminal defendant, who corresponded to a juvenile at the time when the judgment of the first instance was rendered, had been sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the appellate court cannot render a determinate sentence which is more severe than the indeterminate sentence in accordance with the principle of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration. In such a case, how to determine the upper limit of a determinate sentence that may be rendered by the appellate court comes into question. In other words, how to establish the standard for determining whether the principle of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration is violated when the appellate court ought to change an indeterminate sentence rendered by the first instance court into a determinate sentence becomes the issue of this case.
The previous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court took a stance that short term of an indeterminate sentence ought to be the standard on the grounds that it obviously corresponds to advantageous alteration in that a chance to be released is given if short term has passed where an indeterminate sentence was rendered, and such chance is lost where a sentence exceeding short term is rendered. However, it is alleged that the previous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court ought to be changed to the effect that it is unfair in that, if the appellate court cannot hand down the sentence exceeding short term on the grounds that majority is attained by the criminal defendant in this case, this is inconsistent with the purpose of the Juvenile Act, stipulating that special measures under criminal dispositions, which is advantageous and flexible, shall be applied only to juveniles at the time of sentencing the judgement; leads to violation of the principle of the balance of crime by excessively constraining sentencing discretion of the appellate court; and causes unconditionally advantageous result to the criminal defendant to be guaranteed beyond the purpose of the principle of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration, which was introduced for a policy-level purpose of preventing the exercise of right of appeal from being discouraged.
In response, the Supreme Court, through the subject case, examined whether the previous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, which have taken a stand supporting the short term standard theory, are reasonable as the legal doctrine appropriate to regulate current changing situation in various aspects. The Dissenting Opinion (short term standard theory) and Concurring Opinion (long term standard theory), each of which was quite convincing, were suggested, but the Majority Opinion assessed what extent of sentence among them is relatively superior as a standard which may be in tune with the purpose of the Juvenile Act, responsibility principle, principle of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration by viewing long term and short term of an indeterminate sentence and all kinds of sentences from short term to long term of an indeterminate sentence as being coextensive, and, as a consequence, determined that the middle term sentence, corresponding to the center between long term and short term of an indeterminate sentence, can be the relatively superior standard.
It has great significance in that the subject case made up for irrationality, which may occur when being based on the short term standard theory and long term standard theory, by establishing the middle term sentence as a standard for determining whether to constitute violation of the principle of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration, and adopted a practical way in which the purpose of various institutions surrounding the instant issue can be most appropriately harmonized.