Supreme Court: "Even a 10-Minute Late Return by Sex Offender with Electronic Anklet Violates Compliance Requirements"

Acquittal Verdicts of Lower Courts Overturned

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling that acquitted an electronic monitoring anklet wearer who returned home 10 minutes past the designated curfew, and has sent the case back to a lower court for a guilty verdict.

Reference image. Yonhap News

According to the legal community on February 2, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Park Youngjae) overturned the acquittal verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Act on the Attachment of Electronic Devices, and remanded the case to Jeju District Court. Previously, both the first and second trial courts had acquitted Mr. A of violating the curfew restriction, but imposed a fine of 1 million won for refusing a breathalyzer test.

In February 2011, Mr. A was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 15 years of electronic monitoring for sexual violence crimes, including the rape of a minor. In November 2022, the Jeju District Court additionally imposed a special condition requiring him to "refrain from leaving his residence between 00:00 and 06:00 every day."

However, on the night of January 17, 2023, Mr. A drank alcohol at a karaoke bar in Jeju City and returned home late, violating the curfew for about 10 minutes from 00:00 to 00:10 the next day. It was found that Mr. A had contacted the probation office in advance, stating, "I couldn't get a taxi, so I am walking home and will be about 10 minutes late."

The first and second trial courts ruled, "It is difficult to regard being 10 minutes late just once as a violation of the compliance requirements," and acquitted him.

However, the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. The Court stated, "Considering the legislative intent of the Electronic Device Attachment Act and the wording of the curfew restriction, it means that, in principle, the individual must remain at their residence during specific hours, such as at night, for the duration of the electronic monitoring period."

The Court further pointed out, "Returning home 10 minutes late after drinking at a karaoke bar cannot be considered a justifiable reason, and the defendant's intent to violate the compliance requirements is also recognized."

As the Supreme Court found a misinterpretation of the law in the acquittal and ordered a retrial, it is expected that Mr. A's violation of the curfew restriction will be confirmed as a guilty verdict.