Do 2010 Do 17564 A. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

(Rape, etc. of a minor in the 13th century)

(b) Compulsory indecent acts;

(c) Larceny;

(d) Attempted larceny;

(e) Interference with business;

2010 Written order to attach 172(Joints)

Defendant

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorney Jin-ro (Korean National Assembly Line)

Busan High Court Decision 2010No841, 2010 No. 78 (Joint) decided December 9, 2010

March 10, 201

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case Eul shall be remanded to the Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the defendant case

A. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record, it is reasonable to reject the allegation of mental and physical disability by the defendant and the claimant for the order to attach (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") on the ground of the circumstances as shown in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Article 38(2) of the Act on the Protection of Gender Equality of Children and Juveniles (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the period of disclosure of registered information under Article 38(1) of the Act shall not exceed the period under Article 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Lapse of Punishment"), and Article 7(1) of the Act provides that the period of disclosure shall not exceed the period under Article 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, Etc. shall not exceed the period, and that of Article 7(1) of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. shall be terminated or exempted without being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than the period of suspension of qualification, which is a convict, and that of imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years under Article 38(1) of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. and that of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years under Article 38(2) of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Lapse of Punishment:

The court below ordered the defendant to disclose information about the defendant for 10 years, even though the period of disclosure of the registered information pursuant to Article 38 (2) of the Act is not more than 5 years, since the court below imposed a sentence imposed on the defendant's facts of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below by adding a aggravated punishment to concurrent crimes. Such judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the period of disclosure order.

The grounds for appeal pointed out this point are justified.

2. As to the attachment order case

When Defendant 1 filed an appeal against this case, it is deemed that Defendant 1 filed an appeal against this case under Article 9(6) of the Act on the Attachment of Electronic Devices to a specific sexual assault offender (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”). However, even if Defendant 1 did not state the grounds for appeal against this case’s attachment, it cannot be seen that Defendant 1’s request for an order to attach an electronic device under Article 9(4)4 and Article 28(1) of the Electronic Devices Attachment Act should also be dismissed, and if Defendant 1’s order to attach an electronic device is not applied to this case’s order to observe this case’s order, it cannot be seen that Defendant 1’s order to attach an electronic device under Article 9(4)4 and Article 28(1) of the Electronic Devices Attachment Act should not be deemed to have been issued for a fixed period of time when examining whether this case’s order should be complied with.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to remand the case to the court below in order to reverse the entire judgment of the original court and to re-examine and judge the case B.

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn