Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Longer employment restriction order added where only the defendant appealed
Supreme Court, Oct. 17, 2019, 2019Do11540 (judgment)
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When only the defendant appealed against a first-instance judgment, may the appellate court, while imposing the same sentence, add an employment restriction order against welfare facilities for a longer period than the first instance had set, by applying the Supplementary Provisions of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities?
Holding
No. An employment restriction order is a security measure rather than punishment itself, but it restricts freedom of occupational choice in substance, so it must be weighed when the reformatio in peius principle is applied, and the order as a whole must be examined in an overall and substantial way, not individually and formally. Adding an order for a longer period than the first instance set, even while imposing the same sentence, is therefore an adverse change and is not permitted where only the defendant appealed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
취업제한명령은 범죄인에 대한 사회내 처우의 한 유형으로서 형벌 그 자체가 아니라 보안처분의 성격을 가지는 것이지만, 실질적으로 직업선택의 자유를 제한하는 것이다. 따라서 원심이 제1심판결에서 정한 형과 동일한 형을 선고하면서 제1심에서 정한 취업제한기간보다 더 긴 취업제한명령을 부가하는 것은 전체적·실질적으로 피고인에게 불리하게 변경한 것이므로, 피고인만이 항소한 경우에는 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
An employment restriction order is a type of community-based treatment of a crime offender and, although it has the character of a security measure rather than a criminal punishment itself, it substantively restricts the freedom to choose an occupation. Accordingly, where the appellate court pronounces a sentence identical to the sentence imposed in the judgment of the court of first instance but imposes an employment restriction order with a restriction period longer than that set by the court of first instance, this constitutes a change unfavorable to the defendant as a whole and in substance and, therefore, where the defendant alone appeals, it is not permissible.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
불이익변경금지원칙을 적용할 때에는 주문을 개별적·형식적으로 고찰할 것이 아니라 전체적·실질적으로 고찰하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
When applying the principle prohibiting changes unfavorable to the defendant, the disposition must not be examined individually and formally, but must be examined as a whole and in substance.
Factors
- 피고인만이 항소한 사건에 대하여는 제1심판결의 형보다 중한 형을 선고하지 못한다.
- 취업제한명령은 범죄인에 대한 사회내 처우의 한 유형으로서 형벌 그 자체가 아니라 보안처분의 성격을 가지는 것이지만, 실질적으로 직업선택의 자유를 제한하는 것이다.
- 피고인은 구 장애인복지법(2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제59조의3 제1항에 따라 취업제한을 받는 사람으로서
- 개정법 부칙 제3조 제1항 제2호에 따라 장애인복지시설에 취업이 제한되는 기간은 3년이 되었을 것인데
Unofficial English translation
• In a case appealed by the defendant alone, no sentence heavier than the sentence in the judgment of the court of first instance may be pronounced.
• An employment restriction order is a type of community-based treatment of a crime offender and, although it has the character of a security measure rather than a criminal punishment itself, it substantively restricts the freedom to choose an occupation.
• The defendant, as a person subject to employment restriction under Article 59-3 (1) of the former Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act (the Act before its amendment by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018),
• under Article 3 (1) 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act, the period during which employment in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities is restricted would have been three years,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 12. 12. 선고 2012도7198 판결(공2014상, 212)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7198 decided December 12, 2013 (Gong 2014 Sang, 212)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 12. 12. 선고 2012도7198 판결(공2014상, 212)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the period set by the Supplementary Provisions would itself have been five years, would adding a welfare-facilities restriction order for the first time still be an adverse change?
Any amendment to Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or to its Supplementary Provisions of 11 December 2018 would require this entry to be read again. So would a later Supreme Court decision addressing an appellate order where only the defendant appealed and the period under the Supplementary Provisions was unchanged.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the period set by the Supplementary Provisions would itself have been five years, would adding a welfare-facilities restriction order for the first time still be an adverse change?” vs Independent “How should disadvantage be assessed if the appellate court reduces imprisonment while extending an employment restriction?”
The primary asks whether a first-time welfare-facilities restriction would be adverse if the supplementary period had been five years, while the independent asks how to assess disadvantage when imprisonment is reduced but the restriction is extended.
취업제한명령은 범죄인에 대한 사회내 처우의 한 유형으로서 형벌 그 자체가 아니라 보안처분의 성격을 가지는 것이지만, 실질적으로 직업선택의 자유를 제한하는 것이다. 따라서 원심이 제1심판결에서 정한 형과 동일한 형을 선고하면서 제1심에서 정한 취업제한기간보다 더 긴 취업제한명령을 부가하는 것은 전체적·실질적으로 피고인에게 불리하게 변경한 것이므로, 피고인만이 항소한 경우에는 허용되지 않는다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 19 July 2019 (2019No2946), delivered after the amended Act came into force, vacated the first-instance judgment of 24 May 2019 ex officio. It reasoned that Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions and the amended Article 59-3(1) required an employment restriction order against welfare facilities to be pronounced together with the judgment, and it convicted the defendant, imposing the same sentence as the first instance, one year's imprisonment, 120 hours of a sexual violence treatment programme and a five-year restriction on employment related to children and juveniles, and adding a five-year restriction on employment in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendant, whose offence predated the amended Act, fell under the former Article 59-3(1), so that had the first-instance judgment become final the restriction on welfare facilities would have run for three years under Article 3(1)(ii) of the Supplementary Provisions even without a separate order. Imposing five years while repeating the first-instance sentence was therefore an adverse change, and the court below had misread the reformatio in peius principle in a way that affected the judgment. Because an employment restriction order is a subsidiary measure pronounced together with the judgment in a sexual offence case, the whole judgment had to be reversed and remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the prosecution also appealed, so that the prohibition on a heavier sentence does not bind the appellate court.
- An appellate sentence whose employment restriction period is no longer than the period the first instance set, since the adverse change the Court identified was the longer period.
- A case in which the Supplementary Provisions themselves set the restricted period at five years, such as where a sentence of imprisonment exceeding three years was pronounced and confirmed.
Record verification notes
Compare the first-instance judgment with the appellate judgment term by term: the sentence, the treatment programme, each restriction order and its period. Then fix the period the Supplementary Provisions of the amended Act would have given had the first judgment become final, and check which party or parties appealed, since the prohibition binds only where the defendant alone appealed and the change is adverse to the defendant.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 불이익변경금지원칙을 적용할 때에는 주문을 전체적·실질적으로 고찰하여 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 취업제한명령의 성격(=보안처분) / 피고인만이 항소한 경우, 항소심이 제1심판결에서 정한 형과 동일한 형을 선고하면서 제1심에서 정한 취업제한기간보다 더 긴 취업제한명령을 부가하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정된 장애인복지법의 시행 전에 성범죄를 범한 피고인에 대하여, 제1심이 개정법 시행일 이전에 유죄를 인정하여 징역 1년과 120시간의 성폭력 치료프로그램 이수명령, 아동·청소년 관련기관 등에 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고하였고, 이에 대하여 피고인만 양형부당을 이유로 항소하였는데, 개정법 시행일 이후에 판결을 선고한 원심이 개정법 부칙 제2조와 개정법 제59조의3 제1항에 따라 판결 선고와 동시에 아동·청소년 관련기관 등에 대한 취업제한명령뿐 아니라 장애인복지시설에 대한 취업제한명령을 선고하여야 한다는 이유로 제1심판결을 직권으로 파기하고 유죄를 인정하면서 제1심과 동일한 형 등과 함께 장애인복지시설에 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고한 사안에서, 원심의 판단에 불이익변경금지원칙에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, when applying the principle prohibiting changes unfavorable to the defendant, the disposition must be examined as a whole and in substance (affirmative) / The character of an employment restriction order (= security measure) / Where the defendant alone appeals, whether it is permissible for the appellate court to impose an employment restriction order with a restriction period longer than that set by the court of first instance, while pronouncing a sentence identical to the sentence imposed in the judgment of the first instance (negative) [2] In a case where, before the enforcement of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018, the court of first instance found the defendant, who had committed a sex crime before the effective date of the amended Act, guilty and pronounced imprisonment for one year, an order to complete a 120-hour sexual violence treatment program, and a 5-year employment restriction order from children and youth-related institutions, etc., and the defendant alone appealed on the ground of impropriety in sentencing, and the court below, which pronounced its judgment after the effective date of the amended Act, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance ex officio, on the ground that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act and Article 59-3 (1) of the amended Act, it must pronounce, simultaneously with the pronouncement of judgment, an employment restriction order not only from children and youth-related institutions, etc., but also from welfare facilities for persons with disabilities, and, finding the defendant guilty, pronounced a 5-year employment restriction order from welfare facilities for persons with disabilities together with the same sentence as that of the first instance, a case in which it was held that the decision of the court below was erroneous in misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the principle prohibiting changes unfavorable to the defendant
Summary of the holding
[1] 피고인만이 항소한 사건에 대하여는 제1심판결의 형보다 중한 형을 선고하지 못한다. 불이익변경금지원칙을 적용할 때에는 주문을 개별적·형식적으로 고찰할 것이 아니라 전체적·실질적으로 고찰하여 판단하여야 한다. 취업제한명령은 범죄인에 대한 사회내 처우의 한 유형으로서 형벌 그 자체가 아니라 보안처분의 성격을 가지는 것이지만, 실질적으로 직업선택의 자유를 제한하는 것이다. 따라서 원심이 제1심판결에서 정한 형과 동일한 형을 선고하면서 제1심에서 정한 취업제한기간보다 더 긴 취업제한명령을 부가하는 것은 전체적·실질적으로 피고인에게 불리하게 변경한 것이므로, 피고인만이 항소한 경우에는 허용되지 않는다. [2] 2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정된 장애인복지법(이하 ‘개정법’이라 한다)의 시행 전에 성범죄를 범한 피고인에 대하여, 제1심이 개정법 시행일 이전에 유죄를 인정하여 징역 1년과 120시간의 성폭력 치료프로그램 이수명령, 아동·청소년 관련기관 등에 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고하였고, 이에 대하여 피고인만 양형부당을 이유로 항소하였는데, 개정법 시행일 이후에 판결을 선고한 원심이 개정법 부칙 제2조와 개정법 제59조의3 제1항(이하 ‘개정규정’이라 한다)에 따라 판결 선고와 동시에 아동·청소년 관련기관 등에 대한 취업제한명령뿐 아니라 장애인복지시설에 대한 취업제한명령을 선고하여야 한다는 이유로 제1심판결을 직권으로 파기하고 유죄를 인정하면서 제1심과 동일한 형 등과 함께 장애인복지시설에 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고한 사안에서, 개정규정과 개정법 부칙 제1조, 제2조, 제3조 제1항 각호, 제4조의 내용과 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 구 장애인복지법(2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제59조의3 제1항에 따라 취업제한을 받는 사람으로서, 개정법 시행 전에 징역 1년을 선고한 제1심판결에 대하여 검사와 피고인이 항소하지 않아 제1심판결이 확정되었다면 별도의 취업제한명령의 선고가 없더라도 개정법 부칙 제3조 제1항 제2호에 따라 장애인복지시설에 취업이 제한되는 기간은 3년이 되었을 것인데, 원심은 개정법 부칙 제2조에 따라 개정규정을 적용하여 피고인에게 제1심과 동일한 형 등과 함께 장애인복지시설에 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고하였으므로, 결국 제1심판결에 대하여 피고인만이 항소하였는데도, 원심은 제1심과 동일한 형 등을 선고하면서 개정법 부칙에서 정한 취업제한기간보다 더 긴 5년간의 취업제한명령을 선고함으로써 피고인에게 불리하게 제1심판결을 변경한 것이어서 허용되지 않는다는 이유로, 원심의 판단에 불이익변경금지원칙에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제368조 [2] 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제13조, 제16조 제2항, 아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제56조 제1항, 구 장애인복지법(2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제59조의3 제1항, 장애인복지법(2018. 12. 11. 법률 제15904호로 개정된 것) 제59조의3 제1항, 부칙(2018. 12. 11.) 제1조, 제2조, 제3조 제1항 제2호, 제4조, 형사소송법 제368조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger