beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2018노4517

준강제추행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service order of 80 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 40 hours) is too unhued and unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) places restrictions on employment at child-related institutions, etc. for ten years from the date the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated or suspended or exempted, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jul. 17, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”). Unlike the previous provision, Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”), where a court declares a sex offense or a medical treatment and custody order for a sex offense (excluding a person subject to an employment restriction order under Article 11(5)) and at the same time imposes an employment restriction order for a period not exceeding 10 years, and at the same time imposes an employment restriction order for the same period (excluding a person subject to a fine).

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act provides that "The amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment."

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act.