All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2024Do3387 Decided December 24, 2025 【Violation of the Act on Electronic Monitoring】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In a case where a court issues an order to attach an electronic device to an individual and imposes a curfew condition requiring that person to refrain from leaving their place residence at certain times, including nighttime hours, by “specifying the period for compliance within the period of electronic monitoring” pursuant to Article 9-2(1)1 of the Act on Electronic Monitoring, the meaning of such condition Matters to be considered when determining whether there are reasonable grounds stipulated in Article 39(3) of the said Act [2] In a case where: (a) the Defendant was obligated to comply with the condition to refrain from leaving his place of residence during specified hours, including nighttime (00:00-06:00); (b) the Defendant was told about the details of the conditions and criminal punishment in case of breach and was instructed to return home every day before midnight; (c) the Defendant was instructed to report to the competent officer in the event reasons requiring leave occur, such as for work or hospital treatment, and to write an application for a temporary removal of curfew; and (d) the Defendant, despite the instruction, breached the curfew condition for 10 minutes when he returned home on foot from a karaoke bar, where he got drunk, after failing to catch a taxi, and was charged for the violation, the case holding that the Defendant’s act constitutes a violation of the conditions under Article 9-2(1)1 of the Act on Electronic Monitoring without reasonable grounds and that the Defendant violated the curfew with deliberate intent | |
