beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered by the defendant is improper because the punishment (three million won of fine and order to complete a program) imposed by the defendant is too unhued.
2. Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) uniformly limits the employment of institutions, etc. related to children and juveniles for ten years from the date the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jul. 17, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in cases where a court declares a sex offense or a medical treatment and custody for a sex offense at the same time does not impose any restriction on employment restriction order on the employment of children and juveniles, etc.
Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act provides that "The amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment."
For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of indecent act by compulsion of this case.
However, since Article 56 of the revised Act on the Protection of Juveniles applies to this case after the decision of the court below was made, it is necessary to judge whether to issue an employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction against the defendant, so the judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain
3. Therefore, the court below's decision is erroneous.