beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of one million won, a fine of six million won, a suspended sentence of imprisonment, one year, an order to attend a sexual assault treatment program, 40 hours, and three years of an employment restriction order) declared by the court below is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) effective on June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offenses, the court shall make an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prohibit them from providing employment or actual labor at welfare facilities for a certain period from the date when the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date when the sentence becomes final) is suspended or exempted by a judgment (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) and the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low
In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act and has not been finally determined.
Since the crime of indecent act by compulsion falls under a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the above Act applies, this court should decide on whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant.
Considering the method and mode of the crime indicated in the instant records, the relationship between the victim and the situation before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that there exist any special circumstances that may not significantly lower the risk of re-offending or restrict employment to Defendant B.
On the other hand, the court of this case against the defendant B at the same time as the judgment of this case.