[2] Whether the charges charged for violating Article 7(4) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act constitute a crime of non-compliance (negative)

1. Defendant case

A. In comparison with the elements of a violation of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Special Cases concerning Sexual Crimes”), Article 7(4) and (3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Child Sex Protection Act”), Article 299 of the Criminal Act, there is a difference between the elements of a violation of Article 11(4) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the elements of a violation of Article 11(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 29(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the above crimes does not constitute a violation of Article 7(4) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Children and Juveniles, and Article 16(2) of the Act.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and legal provisions, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty in the case where the prosecutor charged the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter "the defendant") with the violation of Article 11 of the Sexual Violence Act, not the violation of Article 7 (4) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Children's Sex Offenses, and Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no violation of the law of Article 16 of the Child Protection Act and Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s claim of mental disability based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of law

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and the argument that the defendant misleads the defendant of the facts affecting the sentencing, such as the victim's expression of intention not to punish the victim, the defendant's reflectivity, minorness in the degree of indecent act, and the suspicion of

In addition, the argument that disclosure and notification order is unfair among the grounds of appeal is not legitimate grounds of appeal since the defendant asserted it as grounds of appeal or the court below did not consider it as subject to ex officio determination. Furthermore, even in light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the case of the request for attachment order

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for three years on the ground that the Defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)