Even if a person who commits a sexual crime subject to registration under Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was indicted for committing the crime in question before the enforcement of Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act, whether a disclosure order or notification order is subject to the disclosure order or notification order under Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act, if the person was not sentenced to the disclosure order or notification order at the time of enforcement (affirmative)

Articles 32(1), 37, 38, 41, and 42 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Articles 1 and 2(2) of the Addenda ( April 15, 2010); Articles 1 and 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 10260, Apr. 15, 2010)

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9253, 2011 Jeondo152 Decided September 29, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 2288)

Defendant

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorney Lee Young-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 2011No3389, 201No453 decided February 10, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just for the court below to find the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes enacted and promulgated by Act No. 10258 on April 15, 2010 (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) provides for the timing for the implementation of the system with respect to the disclosure order and notification order system of personal information, and does not impose any restrictions differently from the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which provides for a supplementary provision that limits the crimes committed after the enforcement of the aforementioned provision regarding the disclosure order and notification system of personal information. The introduction of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Offenders is not only higher than the rate of recidivism, but also commits sex offenses against children. Thus, the legislative purport of preventing not only sex offenses against adults but also sex offenses against children and juveniles through the disclosure of personal information against sex offenders, and the system of issuing the disclosure order and notification order of personal information should also be deemed to have been implemented prior to the enforcement of Article 27(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Offenses, and Article 317(2) of the Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the court below's order of disclosure or notification under Articles 37 and 41 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of rape committed by the defendant and the respondent for attachment order on January 11, 2008 is subject to the order of disclosure or notification under the above Article 37 and 41, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)