A Man in His 50s Who Lured an Elementary Student in Chuncheon May Face Difficulty Receiving a Prison Sentence...

Significantly Low Penalties for Violations of the Missing Children Act
Application of Abduction and Confinement Charges as a Variable in Punishment Severity

On the 14th, it was reported that the police confirmed two additional offenses against a man in his 50s who was arrested on suspicion of taking an elementary school student who went missing after leaving home in Chuncheon, Gangwon Province. The man was initially charged with violating the Missing Child Act, but it is expected that the level of punishment confirmed through future prosecution and trial will not reach imprisonment based on this charge alone.

The Gangwon Provincial Police Agency announced that after further investigation of Kim (56), who lured and confined elementary school student A, it was confirmed that on July 19 last year, he lured middle school student B to a factory located in Chungju, Chungcheongbuk-do, which was his residence. It was also revealed that in November last year, Kim enticed another middle school student C living in Hoengseong, Gangwon Province, to his home and was caught by the police.

The police detained and sent Kim to prosecution on charges including violation of the Missing Child Act. If the prosecution combines these cases into one indictment, Kim will be tried in custody for the next six months. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the court will detain him in custody at sentencing or ultimately confirm imprisonment based on this charge alone.

The current Missing Child Act stipulates that no one may protect a missing child without reporting to the head of the police station without justifiable reason, and violators are subject to imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to 50 million won. However, the actual level of punishment handed down in court is significantly lower.

In December last year, the Ulsan District Court sentenced two defendants charged with violating the Missing Child Act to fines of 3 million won each. They were accused of enticing a runaway middle school student near the Industrial Tower in Nam-gu, Ulsan, on January 6 of the same year and staying together in a nearby motel until the 8th. The court pointed out that "it is a serious offense to protect runaway children without justifiable reason," but considering that they admitted the crime and showed remorse, a fine was imposed.

Earlier, in November last year, the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court sentenced another defendant charged with the same offense to six months in prison with a one-year probation. The defendant was accused of living with high school student D, who had run away, in his residence for nearly a year despite knowing about her runaway status. The court also stated, "The protection period was quite long, so the culpability is not light," but noted that "the defendant admitted the crime and is remorseful" as reasons for sentencing.

The inconsistent sentencing by different courts is analyzed to be due to the absence of Supreme Court sentencing guidelines that serve as a standard for determining sentences. The Supreme Court prioritizes the establishment of sentencing guidelines based on factors such as the frequency of crimes, and it is interpreted that crimes involving missing children are not frequent, which is reflected in this.

The police reportedly applied charges of luring and confinement of minors in addition to violating the Missing Child Act against Kim. Ultimately, the level of punishment for Kim is expected to depend on whether the prosecution applies charges such as luring and confinement of minors when indicting him. Under current law, the crime of luring a minor carries a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment, and confinement carries up to 5 years imprisonment. If a minor under 13 years old is lured and confined, life imprisonment or imprisonment for five years or more is possible.