Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Victim protection order and the offence of non-compliance
Supreme Court, June 1, 2023, 2020Do5233 (judgment)
Case name: 가정폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a person recognised as a domestic violence offender on the victim's application and given a victim protection order, who then does not comply with it, commit the offence under Article 63(1)(ii) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Domestic Violence Crimes even after the domestic violence act underlying that order was found not guilty in a judgment that became final?
Holding
It does. The term in Article 63(1)(ii) means a person who was recognised as a domestic violence offender on the victim's application, received a victim protection order and did not comply with it, so the offence stands on that basis alone. Because the defendant was so recognised, was given the order of 23 November 2018 and breached it on 22 January 2019, the later acquittal on the underlying assault did not remove the offence, and the judgment below had to be reversed and sent back.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
The term "a domestic violence offender who has received a victim protection order and has failed to comply with it" as provided in Article 63 (1) 2 of the Domestic Violence Punishment Act means a person who, upon the victim's claim, was recognized as a domestic violence offender, received a victim protection order, and yet failed to comply with it.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울북부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
a person who, upon the victim's claim, was recognized as a domestic violence offender, received a victim protection order, and yet failed to comply with it.
Factors
- ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다
- 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법에 따른 피해자보호명령을 받은 갑이 이를 이행하지 않아
- 같은 법 제63조 제1항 제2호의 보호처분 등의 불이행죄로 기소된 이후에
- 피해자보호명령의 전제가 된 가정폭력행위에 대하여 무죄판결을 선고받아 확정된 사안에서
Unofficial English translation
• The term "a domestic violence offender who has received a victim protection order and has failed to comply with it" means a person who, upon the victim's claim, was recognized as a domestic violence offender, received a victim protection order, and yet failed to comply with it
• A, having received a victim protection order under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, failed to comply with it and
• after having been prosecuted for the crime of noncompliance with protective disposition, etc. under Article 63 (1) 2 of the same Act,
• in a case where A was acquitted by a final judgment with respect to the act of domestic violence that formed the basis for the victim protection order
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
이러한 피해자보호명령 제도의 내용과 입법 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호가 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the content and legislative purpose, etc. of such victim protection order system, the term "a domestic violence offender who has received a victim protection order and has failed to comply with it" as provided in Article 63 (1) 2 of the Domestic Violence Punishment Act means a person who, upon the victim's claim, was recognized as a domestic violence offender, received a victim protection order, and yet failed to comply with it.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a victim protection order is later revoked or held void, does the offence of non-compliance with it remain established?
The judgment of the Seoul Northern District Court on remand will show how the offence is applied once the acquittal is set aside. Any amendment to Article 63(1)(ii) or Article 55-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Domestic Violence Crimes, or a later Supreme Court decision on the effect of annulling a protection order, would call for this entry to be read again.
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reads the holding as setting a new standard by defining the term, while the independent reading could not confirm any precedent relation, so the precedent axis is read differently.
이러한 피해자보호명령 제도의 내용과 입법 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호가 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다.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 Seoul Northern District Court, in its judgment of 10 April 2020 (2019No1523), acquitted the defendant. It reasoned that a victim protection order may be made against a person who committed a domestic violence crime or a co-offender who is a family member, that a domestic violence crime means a crime falling within Article 2(iii) of the Act, and that it was hard to see that the defendant was a domestic violence offender, so the breach of the order could not violate Article 63(1)(ii). It relied on the fact that the assault charge of 12 January 2018 had ended in an acquittal that became final on 14 August 2019 and that no other domestic violence crime had been charged or referred for a family protection case before the order.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the meaning of the term is fixed by the content and legislative purpose of the victim protection order system, under which a victim may apply directly to the court for rapid protection. On the facts lawfully adopted, the victim had applied on 21 February 2018 attaching evidence of several acts of violence, the order was made on 23 November 2018, the defendant breached it on 22 January 2019, and the order became final on 2 August 2019 after the defendant's applications were dismissed. Since the defendant was recognised as a domestic violence offender on the victim's application, received the order and did not comply, the offence was established, and the court below had misapprehended the law and failed to hold the necessary hearing. The prosecutor's appeal therefore succeeded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A victim protection order that was not made on the victim's application, since the Court defined the covered person by the victim's application and the recognition that follows it.
- A defendant who did not receive a victim protection order at all, or who complied with the order as given.
- Conduct outside the terms of the protection order, such as acts the order's prohibition does not reach, since liability rests on failure to comply with the order as issued.
Record verification notes
Set out the protection order itself: the date it was made, the acts it prohibits, the period it runs and the date it became final, and confirm it was obtained on the victim's application. Then match each charged act against those terms, since compliance is measured against the order as issued. Do not treat the acquittal of the underlying act as decisive, as the Court held the offence stands without it.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제63조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’의 의미 [2] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법에 따른 피해자보호명령을 받은 갑이 이를 이행하지 않아 같은 법 제63조 제1항 제2호의 보호처분 등의 불이행죄로 기소된 이후에 피해자보호명령의 전제가 된 가정폭력행위에 대하여 무죄판결을 선고받아 확정된 사안에서, 갑이 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 않은 이상, 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제63조 제1항 제2호의 보호처분 등의 불이행죄가 성립한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "a domestic violence offender who has received a victim protection order and has failed to comply with it" as provided in Article 63 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence [2] A case in which A, having received a victim protection order under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, failed to comply with it and was prosecuted for the crime of noncompliance with protective disposition, etc. under Article 63 (1) 2 of the same Act, and thereafter was acquitted by a final judgment with respect to the act of domestic violence that formed the basis for the victim protection order, and in which it was held that, insofar as A was recognized as a domestic violence offender, received a victim protection order, and failed to comply with it, the crime of noncompliance with protective disposition, etc. under Article 63 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence was established
Summary of the holding
[1] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(이하 ‘가정폭력처벌법’이라 한다)상 피해자보호명령 제도의 내용과 입법 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말한다. [2] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(이하 ‘가정폭력처벌법’이라 한다)에 따른 피해자보호명령을 받은 갑이 이를 이행하지 않아 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호의 보호처분 등의 불이행죄로 기소된 이후에 피해자보호명령의 전제가 된 가정폭력행위에 대하여 무죄판결을 선고받아 확정된 사안에서, 갑이 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 않은 이상, 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호의 보호처분 등의 불이행죄가 성립하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울북부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1호, 제3호, 제4호, 제55조의2 제1항, 제63조 제1항 제2호 [2] 가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제2조 제1호, 제3호, 제4호, 제55조의2 제1항, 제63조 제1항 제2호
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