1. The Client's Crisis

Boy A, a protected juvenile, had received Dispositions No. 1 and No. 4 (guardian supervision + short-term probation) in a juvenile court one year earlier and was serving probation. One month before the disposition was set to end, the probation office filed a petition to modify the protective disposition on the ground that A was carrying out the disposition insincerely, and the juvenile court accepted it, changing the disposition to long-term probation and one month of admission to a juvenile detention center. A had not committed any other misconduct during that time, and there had only been some arguments with his mother over the high school entrance exam issue, so the news came as a bolt from the blue to the whole family. The guardian visited several law firms to try to prevent admission to the juvenile detention center, but with only two weeks left until the admission date, all they received were negative answers. The client then came to Law Firm Jonjae, a family-law-specialized law firm.

2. Key Issues

The difficulties in this case were largely threefold. First, the matter was extremely urgent. With only two weeks left until the date of admission to the juvenile detention center, and because appeals against dispositions in juvenile protective proceedings do not have the effect of suspending enforcement, we first had to secure a way to change the admission date itself. Second, in practice it is very rare for a disposition to be changed on appeal from a decision to modify a protective disposition. This was why the other law firms gave negative answers. Third, since the case involved Dispositions No. 1 and No. 4 for driving without a license, followed by a finding of insincere compliance, it was structurally difficult for the court to view a change decision as unreasonable.

3. Jonjae's Strategy

Attorney Shin Mari judged immediately after the consultation that there was a possibility of a solution, informed the client that there was a way to change the admission date, and took the case at once. As soon as the guardian returned home, she immediately proceeded with the appeal process, and the appellate court, taking into account the juvenile detention center admission date, scheduled the appeal hearing just three days after the request.

Despite the extremely tight preparation time, Attorney Shin Mari, drawing on her extensive experience in family cases, prepared a supporting opinion brief and argued the following: that A had faithfully carried out probation for one year; that the disputes with the guardian over academy absences and the like were merely minor quarrels, not problems arising from delinquent tendencies, and were the kind of thing that can happen to any teenager; that A was not in a situation warranting a disposition that would separate him from society; that sending him to the juvenile detention center in this situation could instead adversely affect the juvenile's future and family harmony; and that, taken together, the juvenile detention center admission disposition ran counter to the purpose of juvenile adjudication.

4. Result and Recovery

The appellate court accepted Attorney Shin Mari's arguments, revoked the one-month juvenile detention center admission disposition, and changed the disposition to 80 hours of community service. A was able to maintain his daily life without being admitted to the juvenile detention center and to carry out the community service.

Responsible Attorney: Attorney Shin Mari

To protect confidentiality, this case has been partially de-identified within a scope that does not undermine the essence of the matter.