|
¡¼Main Issues and Holdings¡½
[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 one¡¯s 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 a 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 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 by foot from a karaoke bar, where he got drunk, after failing to grab a cab, and was charged for the violation, the case holding that the Defendant¡¯s act constitutes a violation of 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
|