아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강간)등
The judgment below
The guilty part of the defendant's case and the part of the request for probation order are reversed.
. against the Defendant.
The lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and accordingly, the Defendant and the person requesting probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the prosecutor did not appeal.
Therefore, since this part is separated, it is excluded from the object of the judgment of this court.
2. According to Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall, unlike the Act prior to the amendment, impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or not to provide employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for persons with disabilities during the employment restriction period (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment” under the following) in the same manner as the case of a sex offense; however, an employment restriction order may not be issued in the event that there are special circumstances that prevent the employment restriction, and the employment restriction period
In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 11, 2018) provides that these amendments shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final and conclusive judgments.
Therefore, in the case of sentencing punishment due to the instant sex offense, it was necessary to deliberate and decide whether or not to issue an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for the disabled in accordance with the above provision, and the restriction period, etc., and in this regard, the part of the judgment of the court below that did not include it was impossible to maintain it as it is.
In addition, where the part of the judgment of the court below reversed the defendant's case, the part of the judgment of the court below that should be tried together and sentenced simultaneously cannot be reversed.
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, 2015Mo2524 Decided September 10, 2015 (Joint Judgment)