beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) does not constitute an indecent act against the victim D as described in the facts charged, and there is a reasonable probability that one of the E or F, a defendant's daily behaviors at the time of the appeal, would actually commit an indecent act against the victim D.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal on the ex officio judgment.
Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court shall set a differential period of employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined in the following B.
B. The Defendant, even in the lower court, argued the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by clearly explaining the judgment in detail.
The court below found the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in detail.