성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(친족관계에의한강제추행)등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have committed indecent acts by compulsion of the victim B’s chest, and even though there was no physical abuse committed about about 30 times the part of the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her
B. On February 5, 2019, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of physical abuse, even though the Defendant recognized the victim B’s buckbucks around 23:00 on or around February 5, 2019, by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.
The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, provides that in cases where the court declares a punishment for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall impose an order to operate a child-related institution or not to provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period simultaneously with the judgment of a child abuse-related crime case. The proviso of the above provision provides that the exemption shall be granted in cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where the employment is determined otherwise, or where the employment is not restricted.
Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the above Act provides that 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 been finally determined.
The crime of this case committed by the defendant constitutes a child abuse-related crime to which Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act applies, and thus, the defendant is sentenced to or exempted from an employment restriction order against child-related institutions.