Defendant

Kim Jong-hee (prosecutions) and leapmony (public trial)

Attorney Lee Jin-sung (Korean)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of violating the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders on February 2015.

On October 7, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, etc. and was sentenced to an order to attach an electronic tracking device for 5 years at the Gangnam District Court Gangnam Branch on May 14, 2013 in the execution of the sentence, and was under execution of the order to attach an electronic tracking device at the present location after the completion of the execution of the sentence in the above prison on May 18, 2013.

A person who has an electronic tracking device installed shall not arbitrarily separate or damage the electronic device from his/her body during the period of attachment of the electronic device, interfere with its dissemination, alter data received, or otherwise impair its utility.

On May 26, 2013, from around 18:23 to 18:41 on the same day, the Defendant got back without carrying a portable tracking device among the location tracking devices at the vicinity of the Korea Rehabilitation Agency located in the 415-9 Dong Dong-dong 415-9, and was unable to confirm the location of the Defendant, thereby impairing the utility of the location tracking device by the same method seven times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached list, from November 11, 2014.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. A petition filed by the director general of the central probation office;

1. Investigation report (to hear the Government's probation office's statement on protection of the Nonindicted Party in the probation office);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment;

Articles 38 and 14(1) of the Act on Probation and Attachment, etc. of Electronic Devices for Specific Criminal Offenders.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

As long as the defendant does not possess the electronic device in his body and thus impairs the utility of his location tracking, even if the time is short, the defendant committed an act in violation of the purpose of the law that attached the electronic device and the decision of the court. Furthermore, the crime committed above during the so-called repeated crime period is not good in that the defendant committed the crime. However, considering the fact that the time when the location tracking was impossible was short, and that the act was deemed to have been committed since November 11, 2014, it is deemed that there was no violation. Furthermore, as seen below, it appears that it would be harsh to re-detained the defendant with only the crime committed in the above crime that was found guilty as to the part of the charged facts, and thus, it appears that re-detained the defendant as to the case.

1. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged (the crime committed in the middle of February 2015)

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant cut approximately 1.2 cm from the end of the location tracking device attached to the Defendant’s body at ○○○○○, such as the above facts constituting the crime, and arbitrarily damaged the electronic device.

2. Determination

Article 14(1) of the Act on Probation and the Attachment of Electronic Devices against Specific Offenders provides that "a person who has an electronic device attached (hereinafter referred to as "person subject to attachment") shall not arbitrarily separate, damage, interfere with the dissemination of, alter data received from, or otherwise impair the utility of, the electronic device in his/her body during the period of attachment of the electronic device." Article 38 of the Act provides that "a person subject to attachment who has an electronic device installed the electronic device shall not arbitrarily separate, damage, interfere with the dissemination of, or alter data received from, the electronic device during the period of attachment (including cases applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Articles 27 and 31) and Article 14 of the Act provides that "a person subject to attachment shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won if the person subject to attachment arbitrarily separate, damage, interfere with, or alters data received from the electronic device during the period of attachment of the electronic device is an example of an act detrimental to the electronic utility of the electronic device, and ultimately, a person who does not have any other obligation to punish the electronic device.

In the instant case, even if the Defendant partially cut the end of the electronic device attached to himself/herself, it appears that the Defendant did not harm the utility of tracking the location of the electronic device. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated Article 14(1) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders.

If so, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized that the defendant has impaired the utility of the electronic device attached to him/her, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

3. Conclusion

Since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted by applying the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Tae-sik