2019Do275 Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape)

The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

half (competence by deceptive means) , children and juveniles against sexual traffic

Violation of the Act by indecent act (a child or juvenile who has been recognized as a crime)

violation of the Act on the Protection of Sexual Abuse (Quasi-Indecent Act by Compulsion), children, and

Indecent Acts such as Fraudulent Means, etc.)

2019do1 (Consolidation) An order to attach an electronic device

Persons whose attachment order is requested;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorneys Kim Jong-dae (Korean National Assembly Line)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018No1845, 2018 Jeonno12 decided December 14, 2018 (C)

ix) Judgment

March 28, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found all of the facts charged of the instant case guilty.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on power.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. of the defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), the court below cannot be deemed extremely unfair to sentence the defendant for 10 years, even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the case of the request for attachment order

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years, considering that the defendant is at risk of recidivism, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-chul

Justices Kim In-bok