Do 2018 17223(a) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Child and Juvenile Sex (Demotion)

B)

(b) a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles’ Sexity (a deceptive scheme);

Ma-so-called maid

(c) Inducement of sexual intercourse;

D. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Influence)

obscenity using a new medium

E. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Kidnapping;

(name of crime partially recognized: sexual intercourse, partial inducement.

Preliminary crime: Inducement of sexual intercourse or inducement of minor)

(f) An attempted robbery.

(g) Commercial inducement;

(h) Attempted commercial inducement;

2018 Order to attach 109(Joints) Doz.

A

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorney T (Korean National Assembly Line)

Attorney AU

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Do1413 decided October 18, 2018

January 10, 2019

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the defendant case

A. The defendant and the claimant for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are related to the inducement of sexual intercourse with the victim N and attempted robbery among the facts charged in the instant indictment, and the Chinese court has received and finalized a judgment of conviction against the above victim as a crime of illegal confinement, which is identical to the facts charged in the instant indictment, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

However, even if the defendant was sentenced to a final judgment imposing criminal punishment on the same act in a foreign country, this foreign judgment does not have res judicata effect in Korea (Supreme Court Decision 1983 delivered on October 1983).

25. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant on a different premise are without merit.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted, it is reasonable to determine that among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant was guilty of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Child and Juvenile Sex of the Victims C, the violation of the Act (e.g., fraudulent means), the victim G, the sexual intercourse with, and the inducement of profit-making with, the victim N, the sexual intercourse with, and the attempted robbery with, the victim N, on the ground of the same reasons as indicated in the judgment of the court below. There is no error of law by violating the logic and experience legal rules, and thereby exceeding the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

C. Examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, criminal record, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion, there is considerable reason to recognize that the amount of punishment of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant for six years, 13 years, and 7 years is extremely unfair.

2. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record as to the case claiming attachment order, it is reasonable to order Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years on the ground that Defendant was at risk of recidivism of sexual assault and abduction crimes on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error as to the allegation of the grounds of appeal at the same time.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok

Jeju High Court Decision 205 Cho Jae-chul