Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Kim Purification (prosecution) and Kim Byung-gu (Trial)

Attorney Kim Young-young

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gohap235 Decided November 1, 2016

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The photograph taken by the Defendant (hereinafter “the photograph of this case”) does not constitute a child or juvenile pornography since the appearing person cannot be clearly perceived as a child or juvenile due to deletion of the victim’s face. Even if the photograph of this case constitutes a child or juvenile pornography, the Defendant’s act is dismissed as unlawful since the victim exercised his/her right to sexual self-determination by participating in photographs with the victim’s voluntary and serious intent.

B) The Defendant merely exchanged text messages with the victim upon the victim’s voluntary exercise of the victim’s right to sexual self-determination, and did not commit emotional abuse against the victim.

C) Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete hearing, erroneous determination of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate (the defendant's written opinion of January 12, 2017 and the defendant's defense counsel's written statement of the grounds for appeal submitted after the expiration of the submission period of the grounds for appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement in case of the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal, and no separate decision shall be made with respect to the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion that are not entirely stated in the grounds for appeal)

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts

A prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution not only because each act listed in the list of crimes (1) of the court below constitutes "a child's obscene act" under Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act, "an act mediating or mediating a child's obscene act," "sexual harassment, etc. that may cause a sense of sexual shame to the child", but also constitutes "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act" under domestic affairs, even if a public prosecution was instituted as constituting "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act", it shall be deemed as "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act" under Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act, but it shall not be deemed as "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act" under Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act. However, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant's act does not constitute "an act

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

1) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, Distribution, etc. of obscenity)

The defendant argued that he is identical to the above assertion of mistake of facts, etc. in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail.

원심이 설시한 사정들에 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제2조 제5호 는, ‘아동·청소년이용음란물’이란 아동·청소년 또는 아동·청소년으로 명백하게 인식될 수 있는 사람이나 표현물이 등장하여 제4호 의 어느 하나에 해당하는 행위를 하거나 그 밖의 성적 행위를 하는 내용을 표현하는 것으로서 필름·비디오물·게임물 또는 컴퓨터나 그 밖의 통신매체를 통한 화상·영상 등의 형태로 된 것을 말한다고 규정하고 있는 점, ② 피고인은 피해자로부터 중학교 2학년생이라는 내용의 문자메시지를 받아 피해자의 연령을 알게 되었음에도 3회에 걸쳐 휴대폰을 이용하여 아동·청소년인 피해자가 등장하는 이 사건 사진을 촬영한 점, ③ 이 사건 사진은 피해자가 누워 있는 채로 천장을 보며 양다리를 벌려 음부를 드러내고 있는 모습, 피해자가 양팔을 뒤로 묶인 상태에서 항문에 개꼬리 인형을 삽입하고 엎드려 있거나 개꼬리 인형이 삽입된 피해자의 엉덩이와 음부가 강조된 모습, 피해자가 노끈 등으로 묶여 음식을 핥아 먹는 모습, 목에 개목걸이를 두르고 양쪽 유두가 집게로 집혀진 피해자의 모습 등을 담고 있는 등으로 피해자의 신체의 전부 또는 일부가 노출되어 일반인의 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키는 행위를 하거나 그 밖의 성적 행위를 하는 내용을 표현하는 것인 점, ④ 아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 규정의 체계와 내용 등에 비추어 객관적으로 아동·청소년이 등장하는 경우에도 그 등장인물이 아동·청소년으로 명백하게 인식될 수 없으면 아동·청소년이용음란물에 해당하지 아니한다는 피고인의 주장은 받아들일 수 없는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 사진에는 객관적으로 아동·청소년인 피해자가 등장할 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 사진 중 피고인이 에스엠(SM) 관련 트위터에 게시한 사진에 피해자의 얼굴 부분이 삭제되어 있었다 하더라도 이 사건 사진의 내용과 함께 등장인물인 피해자의 외모와 신체발육 상태, 이 사건 사진의 출처 및 촬영 경위 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 사회평균인의 입장에서 건전한 사회통념에 따라 객관적이고 규범적으로 평가할 때 이 사건 사진의 등장인물인 피해자가 명백하게 아동·청소년으로 인식될 수도 있었던 점 등을 보태어 보면, 원심의 판단은 정당하므로, 피고인의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse)

Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Welfare Act refers to not only cases where the mental health and normal development of a child is hindered but also cases where the risk or possibility of causing such a result arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13488, Dec. 23, 2015).

The defendant argued that he is identical to the above assertion of mistake of facts, etc. in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail.

앞서 본 법리와 원심이 설시한 사정들에 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 아동인 피해자가 피고인과 문자메시지를 주고받으면서 능동적인 반응을 보인 적도 있지만, 피해자가 피고인에게 “아빠한테는 싫어요..!. 개하고는 싫어요”, “동생이나 엄마랑 같이 조교를 받는다면 진짜 싫을 것 같아요!”, “으아아악. 주인님이 갑자기 너무 무서워요ㅠㅜ. 그래도 돌림빵같은 건 좀 그래요”, “잠도 편하게 못 자겠는데요”, “피해자가 돌림빵을 당하게 되면 도망가기 바쁠 것 같아요. 으악. 갑자기 돌림빵이 무서운 것 같아요!!”, “으아ㅠㅜ 진짜 아프네요”, “돌림빵 버틸 자신이 없어요”라는 문자메시지를 보내는 등으로 근친상간, 수간, 윤간 등에 대하여 거부감을 표시한 점, ② 피고인은 피해자에게 유사성교행위 등을 하도록 요구하고, 피해자를 “걸레, 암캐, 변태년, 개년, 음란한 년, 정액받이 년”이라고 호칭하였던 점, ③ 피해자는 수사기관에서 “정신적으로 이런 행위가 옳고 그냥 너무 당연하게 된 것 같은 게 피해를 입은 것이다. 피고인의 처벌을 원한다”고 진술한 점, ④ 앞서 본 사정 등에 비추어 피고인의 행위로 인해 아동인 피해자의 정신건강과 정상적인 발달을 저해하였거나 그러한 결과를 초래할 위험 또는 가능성이 발생하였다고 봄이 상당한 점 등을 보태어 보면, 원심의 판단은 정당하므로, 피고인의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of mistake

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 09:45 on October 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) laid off the clothes of the victim at an insane room in the Young-gu, Suwon-si ( Address omitted); (b) took the dog of the iron string that was prepared in advance, and treated the victim as an animal, and ordered and obey the order of the victim, “heat”, “heat”, “heat”, and “the ship”, and among them, ordered the victim to look at the string of the string, and to look at the two arms, such as the two arms.

The defendant continued to do the act of similarity with the victim's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

As a result, the Defendant abused the victim by sexually abusing the victim, such as having the victim, who is a child, from March 3, 2016, until March 3, 2016.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges on the ground that the Defendant’s “inciting obscene acts to the victim, who is a child,” clearly stated that the act constitutes sexual abuse against a child, and that the “inciting obscene acts to the child” refers to the act of causing the child to be obscene to a third party, and does not include the act of causing the child to be the principal of the child himself/herself. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant is found to have committed each act listed in the list of crimes in the court below, but all of the acts are deemed to have been sexual acts against the victim, or the victim himself/herself, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to constitute “inciting obscene acts to the child” on the ground that it does not constitute “inciting the child.”

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Article 17 Subparag. 2 of the Child Welfare Act provides that “The act of causing a child to commit an obscene act is one of the prohibited acts. Here, “The act of causing a child to commit an obscene act against a third party” refers to an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act against a third party, and does not mean that the perpetrator directly becomes the other party to the obscene act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do223, Apr. 25, 200).

With respect to this case, the prosecutor's assertion that each act described in the list of crimes in the court below is "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act" as provided in Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act cannot be accepted even in the case where the court below had an offender do an obscene act or let a child do an obscene act in light of the structure, contents, etc. of the Child Welfare Act, which is acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in the circumstances stated in the judgment below. The defendant's defense counsel argued that each act described in subparagraph 1 of the list of crimes in the court below did not constitute "an act of causing a child to commit an obscene act" as provided in subparagraph 2 of Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act, and requested the prosecutor to review the defendant's legal argument based on the Supreme Court decision at the fifth trial date, but the prosecutor requested the prosecutor to find the defendant's defense counsel's argument without merit, and therefore the court below acquitted all of the facts charged, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the court below.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

Considering the fact that the Defendant produced and openly displayed child and juvenile pornography over several occasions, sent text messages containing obscene contents to children, and committed emotional abuse that may harm the mental health and development of the victim, and the nature of the crime is not good, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the case, strict punishment against the Defendant is necessary.

However, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be deemed that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court below, and that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and other conditions of sentencing as stated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and environment, motive, means and consequence after the crime, etc., the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, all

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant and prosecutor's appeal are without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (However, "2:42 of the judgment below's third 7 pages" shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, since it is evident that "the crime of this case" in the 13th eth 13th eth 19th eth eth eth 2015, "1.19th 2015," and "the crime of this case" in the 5th eth eth eth 1st eth eth 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)