아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
The defendant shall be prevented from arranging sexual traffic for 40 hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Acknowledgement of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant mediates sexual traffic with children and juveniles, but it is not a business.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant was a business has erred by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. The lower court’s improper order to restrict employment to institutions related to children and juveniles for five years is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio reversal.
Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15904; Act No. 5904, Dec. 11, 2018; Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as “sex crime”) provides that a person who was sentenced to punishment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense against children or juveniles or sex offense against adults shall not be able to operate welfare facilities or provide employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for persons with disabilities without exception, and stipulates a period of 10
However, when the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 declares a punishment or medical treatment and custody due to a sex offense, the court issued an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prevent them from providing employment or actual labor in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for a fixed period not exceeding ten years (hereinafter “order to restrict employment”) in the same manner as the judgment of a sex offense case is rendered: Provided, That in cases where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or where it is deemed that there is any special reason that the employment should not be restricted, the court may not issue an employment restriction order.
(Article 59-3 (1) and (2) above.