성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한준강제추행)등
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
80 hours per the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence in the part of the Defendant case is too unfilled and unreasonable. In addition, the lower court’s measure that exempted the disclosure and notification order in light of the nature of the instant crime, etc. is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the prosecutor’s request for an attachment order even if the part of the Defendant’s request for an attachment order is acknowledged to pose a risk of re-offending in light of
2. Determination
A. The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, which was amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, with respect to the part of the defendant's case, provides that where the court issues a sentence for a child abuse-related crime, it shall order a child-related institution not to operate the child-related institution for a certain period or to provide employment or actual labor to the child-related institution (hereinafter referred to as "employment restriction order") concurrently with the judgment of the case related to the child abuse-related crime, and the proviso to the above provision provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where the employment is restricted.
In addition, according to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act, the amended provisions of Article 29-3 apply to a person who committed a child abuse-related crime before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.
Since each crime in the judgment below constitutes a crime of child abuse under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, the part of the judgment below which did not decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act against the defendant can no longer be maintained.
B. The lower court determined on the part regarding the claim for attachment order. ① the Defendant is the first offender, and ② the Defendant.