Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 12, 2011, the Defendant filed a final appeal with the judgment on matters to be observed that sexual assault treatment programs will be completed for 100 hours at a location tracking device attachment and protective observation center for three years, and the Defendant violated the Act on the Protection, Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Devices, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on March 15, 2012, as a person under execution of an electronic device attachment order for a specific offender, from March 10, 2015 to November 18, 2016, the Defendant did not complete sexual assault treatment programs 100 hours at a 272-ro Seoul Metropolitan Government Compliance Support Center without justifiable grounds, despite having been requested to complete the sexual assault treatment programs, and thus violated the Act on the Protection, Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders and Electronic Devices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Request for investigation (Seoul Northern District Protection Observation Office);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the facts relative to the education completed by the person under investigation and the correctional institution related thereto);

1. Article 39 (1) and Article 9-2 (1) 4 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Attachment, etc. of Electronic Devices, and the selection of fines concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Claims by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant received 100 hours of sexual assault treatment programs during prisons in prisons for the crime subject to an order to attend a lecture, and that if so, the defendant believed a correctional officer’s explanation that no need to receive sexual assault treatment programs exists after being released from prison, and thus constitutes a legitimate mistake of prohibition.

2. In a case where punishment is not imposed in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Code, it does not mean a simple case of the site of law, but is generally an act of crime, but is a special case.