실종아동등의보호및지원에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal doctrine misunderstanding C (hereinafter “child of this case”) not only voluntarily returned to the police station, but also stayed in the defendant’s office without communication despite the means and opportunity to contact with his/her guardian. As such, the act of protecting the aforementioned child without reporting to the head of the police office is not a “missing child, etc.” as prescribed by the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc., but the defendant did not recognize that the said child was a missing child. Therefore, there is justifiable reason.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Articles 17 and 7 of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, Etc., punishs a missing child, etc. without any justifiable reason without filing a report with the head of the police office. Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that “the term “missing child, etc.” means a child, etc., who has left his/her custody due to such reasons as abduction, abandonment, accident, runaway, or loss of way.” As such, a child voluntarily left home.
Even though it is not included in the concept of missing children, etc.
According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the guardian of the child of this case was found to have reported the disappearance to the police because he was unaware of the whereabouts after the death of the child. Although the child of this case was aware of the contact address and address of the guardian, it is reasonable to view that the child of this case was abandoned from the guardian, as long as the guardian was absent and the contact was discontinued and the guardian was not aware of the address.
B. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the above evidence that the child of this case is the guardian of the defendant.