logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.29 2018노339
강제추행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five million won of punishment, five million won of punishment, and forty hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unhued.

2. Ex officio determination: 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”) restricts the employment of a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. for ten years from the date on which the execution of all or part of a punishment or treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sex offense”) was completed, or the execution of such punishment or treatment and custody is postponed or exempted; however, Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “former Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jul. 17, 2018; hereinafter “the former Act”) shall not impose any restriction on employment of a person subject to the employment restriction at the same time as the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (excluding any person subject to the restriction on employment under Article 56 of the same Act).

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.

“......”

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of indecent conduct in the instant case.

In this case, Article 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act was enforced after the judgment of the court below.

arrow