Where a person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse or the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse fails to submit modified personal information without justifiable grounds after the enforcement of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, whether the person may be punished by applying Article 48(3)1 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse regardless of the time when the person first assumes the duty to submit personal information (affirmative

If a person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765, Jun. 9, 200; hereinafter “former Act”) fails to submit changed personal information after the amendment of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “AB”) to the effect that the person subject to registration of personal information would not be subject to punishment pursuant to Article 48(3)1 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., the provision on punishment for the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) and the provision on punishment for the person subject to registration of personal information under Article 3 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which would not be subject to punishment for the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

Article 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1) and (2) (see current Article 34(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765, Jun. 9, 2009); Article 41(2) (see current Article 43 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse); Article 45(1) and (2) (see current Article 52(1) and (5) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse); Article 34(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201); Article 32, Article 48(3)1 (see current Article 52(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse); Article 45(1) and (3) of the Addenda (see current Article 52(1) and Article 9(3) of the Act);

Defendant

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Lee Tae-tae et al.

Attorney Choi Han-ice

Jeju District Court Decision 201Mo111, 2012Da112 decided February 2, 2012

The appeal filed by the defendant and the respondent against the attachment order shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”);

A. Legal principles

Article 34(2) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sep. 15, 201; Act No. 11046, Mar. 16, 2012; hereinafter “AB”) imposes a duty to submit changed personal information on a person subject to registration of personal information; in the case of photographs, the person subject to registration of personal information shall be required to submit a photograph taken each year from the date of initial registration; and Article 48(3)1 of the ABA provides for a penal provision that criminal punishment shall be imposed on a person subject to registration of personal information who fails to submit changed information without justifiable grounds in violation of Article 34(2) of the ABA. Article 34(1) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 11047, Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter “the Addenda of this case”) provides that “The amended provision of Article 34 shall not apply to a person subject to registration of sexual crimes against whom the AB became final and conclusive. 10

(b) Mental illness;

At the time of each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence legitimately examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant tried to rape a victim who is a juvenile on or around November 1, 208; on February 12, 2009, the Jeju District Court imposed a suspended sentence of three years on the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; and on June 9, 2009, Article 37 (1) 4 and (4) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765, Jun. 9, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"); Article 37 (1) 4 and (4) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that the defendant shall be provided with personal information for inspection for 5 years; Article 1 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; Article 2 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; Article 33 (1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; Article 37 (1) of the former Act on the Act.

In light of the aforementioned legal system and contents of the Act, in a case where a person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act was unable to submit changed personal information under the former Act after the amendment of the Act, it is difficult to apply to the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act and whether the defendant can be subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 48 (3) 1 of the former Act at the time of the act (i.e.,, Article 5 of the Addenda of the Act provides that the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act shall be subject to punishment of the person subject to registration of personal information under Article 41 (2) and 45 (1) of the former Act if the person subject to registration of personal information was unable to submit new information under the former Act for the first time after the amendment of the Act without any justifiable reason. However, the former Act does not provide for the provision that the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act should be subject to punishment of the person subject to registration of personal information under the former Act even after the amendment of the Act.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant had registered personal information under the former Act on March 4, 2009 and failed to submit new photographs each year until October 25, 201 after he had registered personal information for the first time under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, thereby violating the duty to submit personal information, the court below's decision that applied Article 48 (3) 1 of the ASEAN Act and applied Article 48 (3) 1 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against the duty to submit personal information has no error of law

B. Determination of mental suffering from mental illness

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the method and method of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the fact that the defendant specifically states the circumstances of the crime in an investigative agency, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental retardation or mental disorder at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and therefore, this part of the defendant'

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Although the Defendant had been sentenced to the suspended sentence for two years and six months on February 12, 2009, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of the suspended sentence, and did not recover damage up to the trial. Even according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, even according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, the lower court’s sentence is lower than the recommended sentence (at least four years of imprisonment), and other sentencing conditions set forth in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence set by the lower court against the Defendant is within the proper sentencing range, and it is not recognized that the Defendant’s allegation is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

(1) [Determination of Punishment] Aggravated Punishment, General Criteria, and type 1 of the rape (subject to the age of 13 or more) [Special Aggravation] A victim who is vulnerable to the crime (subject to the range of punishment for recommendations] [the scope of sentence] imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four to seven years (limited to severe mitigation] (general mitigation factors]. [The criteria for processing multiple crimes] imprisonment with prison labor for at least four years (pre-resolution according to the applicable punishment under law)