아동복지법위반(아동유기ㆍ방임)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. There was no fact that the Defendants were absent from school due to such reasons as misunderstanding of facts, divorce, etc., the victims’ side adaptation to school, or diseases, etc., and there was no fact that the Defendants failed to provide education to the victims.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles against the Defendants, which judged otherwise.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “Amended Child Welfare Act”) which was amended on June 12, 2019; and enforced on June 12, 2019 (hereinafter “the Child Welfare Act”) provides that where a court declares a punishment for a child abuse-related crime, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits a child-related institution from operating or from providing employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or where it is determined that there is any special circumstance that does not restrict employment.
In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the amended Child Welfare Act provides that the above amendment provision of Article 29-3 provides that a person who has committed a crime related to child abuse before the amendment and has not received a final and conclusive judgment shall also be applied.
As such, Article 29-3 of the amended Child Welfare Act applies to this case, the Defendants who committed child abuse prior to the enforcement of the amended Child Welfare Act shall be tried by examining whether they were sentenced to an employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.
However, the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition to be sentenced simultaneously with the conviction of a child abuse crime case, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below.