logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.26 2019노670
아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동복지시설종사자등의아동학대가중처벌)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of an order to attend a course) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “Child-Related Institutions”) stipulates that a person who was sentenced to punishment or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime shall not be able to operate the facilities or institutions (hereinafter “child-related institutions”) or provide employment or actual labor to the child-related institutions, and uniformly sets the period during which it is impossible to provide its operation, employment or actual labor (hereinafter “employment restriction

However, Article 29-3 of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 1589, Jun. 12, 2019), which was enforced on June 12, 2019, provides that when a court declares a punishment or a medical treatment and custody for child abuse-related crimes, it shall order the operation of a child-related institution or the employment or actual labor to a child-related institution during the employment restriction period (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”) in the same manner as the judgment of the case related to child abuse-related crimes is rendered: Provided, That where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or any special circumstance that does not restrict employment exists, the employment restriction order may not be issued, and the employment restriction period under paragraph (2) provides that the employment restriction order shall not exceed ten years.

Meanwhile, Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that “The amended provisions of Article 29-3 shall also apply to persons who committed a crime related to child abuse and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment before this Act enters into force.”

Therefore, the revised Child Welfare Act was enforced after the judgment of the court below.

arrow