[1] Whether a person who protects and supervises a minor can be the subject of the crime of kidnapping and inducing the minor (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case recognizing the crime of abduction and inducement of minors against a person with parental authority, who actually moves under his/her control, who was a minor (including a minor) taken care of by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Family Affairs, against his/her will

[1] Even if a person protects and supervises a minor, he/she may be the subject of the crime of abduction and inducement of a minor in cases where he/she violates other protection and supervision rights, or violates his/her own interests by abusing his/her custody rights.

[2] The case recognizing the crime of abduction and inducement of minors against a person with parental authority, who actually moves under his/her control, who was a minor (the minor) who was taken care of by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Family Affairs, against his/her will

[1] Article 287 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 287 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Daejeon High Court Decision 2007No214 decided September 5, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

Even if a person who protects and supervises a minor, he/she may be the subject of the crime of abduction and inducement of a minor if he/she violates the other protection and supervision right, or violates his/her own interest by abusing his/her custody right.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2, the father of the victim, and Non-Indicted 1, the wife of the defendant, died in a traffic accident, and as the victim's mother and Non-Indicted 2, the wife of the defendant, were entrusted with fostering the victim to Non-Indicted 2, who is an external assistant of the victim. However, as the dispute occurred between Non-Indicted 2, etc. surrounding the compensation for traffic accident, he was willing to directly raise the victim, in collusion with Defendant 1, who was in collusion with Defendant 1 to leave the victim in a school, and then went back the victim to the arche, who was forced to leave the school against his will, then consulted about the issue of confinement of the victim, and has kidnapped the victim as a minor by taking over the victim to another child welfare counseling center, etc., and was in fact taking the victim in another child welfare counseling center. The judgment of the court below on fact-finding and legal principles are justified in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, and there is no violation

The grounds of appeal pointed out that the Defendants’ act was justifiable in light of the fact that the sentence of quasi-incompetency was pronounced against Defendant 2. However, even if Defendant 2 maintained parental authority due to the absence of improper points in the declaration of quasi-Incompetency with respect to Defendant 2, or the declaration of quasi-incompetency was not finalized at the time of the instant crime, it shall not affect the establishment of the instant crime in light of the aforementioned legal principles and facts, as seen earlier.

In addition, there is no circumstance that Defendant 1 was not guaranteed due process at the investigation stage. The grounds of appeal are without merit.

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)