▲ The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that adding an employment restriction order to a defendant who requested a formal trial in opposition to a summary order of a fine does not violate the principle prohibiting the escalation of punishment types.
The prohibition on escalating punishment types dictates that in cases where only the defendant requests a formal trial, a heavier type of punishment than that of the summary order cannot be imposed.
According to legal circles on October 31, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) finalized the lower court's ruling convicting a defendant identified as A, who was indicted on charges of quasi-indecent act by compulsion, sentencing A to a 5 million won fine and a five-year employment restriction at institutions related to children, adolescents, and people with disabilities.
In August 2024, A received a summary order for a quasi-indecent act by compulsion, which included a 7 million won fine and an order to complete 40 hours of a sexual violence treatment program.
A summary order is a procedure where penalties are determined by reviewing documents without holding a formal trial, limited to relatively minor offenses.
Defendants can request a formal trial if they object to a summary order.
During the formal trial requested by A, the court of first instance sentenced A to a 5 million won fine and ordered the completion of 24 hours of a sexual violence treatment program.
It also imposed a five-year employment restriction at child- and adolescent-related institutions as well as welfare facilities for people with disabilities.
Although the fine and the education hours were reduced, an employment restriction—which was absent in the original summary order—was added.
A appealed this decision, arguing that the court of first instance violated the principle prohibiting the escalation of punishment types under the Criminal Procedure Act, but both the second instance court and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
The principle prohibiting the escalation of punishment types prevents courts from imposing a heavier category of punishment than that of the original summary order on a defendant who appeals through a formal trial.
In the past, the "principle prohibiting disadvantageous changes," which barred the imposition of harsher punishments than those in summary orders, applied. However, following criticism over indiscriminate requests for formal trials, the law was amended in 2017 to restrict the escalation of punishment categories.
The Supreme Court determined that applying the employment restriction order in A's case did not violate this principle.
The Supreme Court ruled that employment restriction orders stipulated under the Act on the Protection of Children and Youths against Sexual Offenses and the Welfare Act for Persons with Disabilities are "a type of treatment within society for offenders, possessing the character of a security measure rather than punishment itself."
The Supreme Court dismissed A's appeal, stating, "Even if a security measure such as an employment restriction order is newly imposed while sentencing the same type of punishment as the summary order in a formal trial, it cannot be deemed as having imposed a heavier category of punishment."
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.