Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Interim protection order end and breach after procedural annulment
Supreme Court, July 13, 2023, 2021Do15745 (judgment)
Case name: 가정폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In criminal conduct cases under the Act on Special Cases on the Punishment etc. of Domestic Violence Crimes, does the 'time of the victim protection order decision' set as the end of an interim protection order under Article 55-4(2) mean the time the decision takes effect by being notified to the family violence actor, and does an act forbidden by a victim protection order that was later annulled in appellate proceedings on procedural grounds still constitute the offence under Article 63(1)(ii)?
Holding
It means the moment the victim protection order decision takes effect by being notified to the family violence actor. Once the interim protection order has been notified and has taken effect, it continues in force until a lawful victim protection order takes effect by notification, unless the court limited the period in the order itself, so an act forbidden by the interim order in that interval violates the Act. A family violence actor who 'received a victim protection order and did not carry it out' under Article 63(1)(ii) is one who was so found on the victim's application and received the order; an annulment in appellate proceedings on procedural grounds alone does not defeat liability.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위와 같은 규정의 체계와 내용, 입법 취지 등에 비추어 볼 때, 가정폭력처벌법 제55조의4 제2항에서 임시보호명령의 종기로 정한 “피해자보호명령의 결정 시”는 그 결정이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지됨으로써 효력이 발생한 때를 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the system and content of the provisions above, the legislative purpose, and the like, "the time of the decision on a victim protection order," set as the expiration date of a temporary protection order in Article 55-4 (2) of the Domestic Violence Punishment Act, means the time when the decision becomes effective by being served on the person who committed domestic violence.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울동부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part concerning the not guilty verdict, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
가정폭력처벌법 제55조의4 제2항에서 임시보호명령의 종기로 정한 “피해자보호명령의 결정 시”는 그 결정이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지됨으로써 효력이 발생한 때를 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
"The time of the decision on a victim protection order," set as the expiration date of a temporary protection order in Article 55-4 (2) of the Domestic Violence Punishment Act, means the time when the decision becomes effective by being served on the person who committed domestic violence.
Factors
- 위와 같은 규정의 체계와 내용, 입법 취지 등에 비추어 볼 때
- 결정 주문에서 종기를 제한하지 않는 이상
- 적법한 피해자보호명령이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지되어 효력이 발생할 때까지 임시보호명령은 계속하여 효력을 유지하므로
- 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말하고
- 피해자보호명령이 항고심에서 절차적 사유로 취소되었음에 불과한 이상
Unofficial English translation
• In light of the system and content of the provisions above, the legislative purpose, and the like
• unless the order restricts the expiration date in the operative part of the decision
• the temporary protection order continues in effect until a lawful victim protection order becomes effective by being served on the person who committed domestic violence
• referring to a person who, upon the victim's claim, was recognized as a person who committed domestic violence and received a victim protection order but failed to comply with it
• since the victim protection order was merely revoked on appeal for procedural reasons
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 6. 1. 선고 2020도5233 판결(공2023하, 1174)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2020Do5233 decided June 1, 2023 (Gong 2023 Ha, 1174)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2023. 6. 1. 선고 2020도5233 판결(공2023하, 1174)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a victim protection order is annulled in appellate proceedings on substantive grounds rather than procedural ones, does an act committed in the interval between the order and its annulment still breach an order that had been validly notified?
A later decision on what happens when a victim protection order is annulled on substantive grounds would change how this entry reads the appellate annulment point. Any amendment to Article 55-4(2) or Article 63(1)(ii) of the Act on Special Cases on the Punishment etc. of Domestic Violence Crimes, or to Article 67-6(1) of the former Family Protection Trial Rules, would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Eastern District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 11 November 2021 (2021No863), held that the interim protection order had lost effect on 9 January 2020, when the court made the victim protection order, and that the victim protection order had lost effect retroactively when it was annulled in appellate proceedings. It therefore held that acts after 9 January 2020 could not satisfy the elements of Article 63(1)(ii), and upheld the first-instance judgment acquitting the accused on that portion of the indictment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the 'time of the victim protection order decision' is the time the decision takes effect by notification, so the interim order continued until a lawful victim protection order took effect by notification, and the single text message sent on 12 January 2020, before that notification, breached it. Because the appellate annulment on 26 March 2020 rested on procedural grounds alone, the call and twelve text messages sent between 23 January and 21 February 2020 also breached the protection order. The court below had misapprehended the law on the effect of the two orders in a way that affected the judgment, so the prosecution's ground of appeal was well founded.
Distinguishing conditions
- An interim protection order whose period the court limited in the text of the order, since the continuation applies unless the end was limited there.
- An interim protection order that had not been notified to the family violence actor and had not taken effect at the time of the act.
- A victim protection order annulled in appellate proceedings on substantive rather than procedural grounds.
Record verification notes
Pull the service records for both the interim order and the protection order, and fix the dates on which each took effect against the dates of each charged act, since liability turns on notification rather than on the decision itself. Then check whether the interim order's text limited the period, and whether the appellate annulment rested on procedural grounds, as it did here with the failure to summon the actor by summons.
From the official text
Points at issue
가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법상 피해자보호명령 및 임시보호명령 제도의 취지 / 같은 법 제55조의4 제2항에서 임시보호명령의 종기로 정한 ‘피해자보호명령의 결정 시’의 의미 및 결정 주문에서 종기를 제한하지 않은 임시보호명령이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지되어 효력이 발생한 후 적법한 피해자보호명령이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지되어 효력이 발생할 때까지의 사이에 가정폭력행위자가 임시보호명령에서 금지를 명한 행위를 한 경우, 임시보호명령 위반으로 인한 같은 법 위반죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) / 같은 법 제63조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’의 의미 및 항고심에서 절차적 사유로 취소된 피해자보호명령에서 금지를 명한 행위를 한 경우, 피해자보호명령 위반으로 인한 같은 법 위반죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Purpose of the victim protection order and temporary protection order systems under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Domestic Violence Crimes, etc. / Meaning of "the time of the decision on a victim protection order," set as the expiration date of a temporary protection order in Article 55-4 (2) of the same Act, and whether the crime of violating the same Act arising from violation of a temporary protection order is established where, during the period after a temporary protection order whose order did not restrict the expiration date became effective by being served on the person who committed domestic violence and before a lawful victim protection order became effective by being served on the person who committed domestic violence, the person who committed domestic violence engaged in an act prohibited by the temporary protection order (affirmative) / Meaning of "a person who committed domestic violence who has received a victim protection order and has failed to comply with it" as provided in Article 63 (1) 2 of the same Act, and whether the crime of violating the same Act arising from violation of a victim protection order is established where the person engaged in an act prohibited by a victim protection order that was revoked on appeal for procedural reasons (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(이하 ‘가정폭력처벌법’이라 한다)은 종래 가정폭력범죄(제2조 제3호)에 대해서 검사가 가정보호사건으로 처리하고 관할 법원에 송치하거나(제11조) 법원이 가정폭력행위자에 대한 피고사건을 심리한 결과 관할 법원에 송치한 사건(제12조)을 전제로 판사가 심리를 거쳐 하는 보호처분(제40조 제1항)만을 규정하고 있었다. 그러나 2011. 7. 25. 법률 제10921호로 도입된 피해자보호명령 제도는 피해자가 가정폭력행위자와 시간적·공간적으로 밀착되어 즉시 조치를 취하지 않으면 피해자에게 회복할 수 없는 피해를 입힐 가능성이 있을 때 수사기관과 소추기관을 거치지 않고 스스로 안전과 보호를 위하여 직접 법원에 보호를 요청할 수 있도록 하는 한편 그러한 명령을 위반한 경우에는 형사처벌을 함으로써 피해자 보호를 강화하려는 취지에서 도입되었다. 임시보호명령 제도는 피해자보호명령 결정 전에 신속하게 피해자를 보호하고자 하는 취지에서 도입되었다. 위와 같은 규정의 체계와 내용, 입법 취지 등에 비추어 볼 때, 가정폭력처벌법 제55조의4 제2항에서 임시보호명령의 종기로 정한 “피해자보호명령의 결정 시”는 그 결정이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지됨으로써 효력이 발생한 때를 의미한다. 따라서 일단 임시보호명령이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지되어 효력이 발생하였다면 결정 주문에서 종기를 제한하지 않는 이상 적법한 피해자보호명령이 가정폭력행위자에게 고지되어 효력이 발생할 때까지 임시보호명령은 계속하여 효력을 유지하므로 가정폭력행위자가 그 사이에 임시보호명령에서 금지를 명한 행위를 한 경우에는 임시보호명령 위반으로 인한 가정폭력처벌법 위반죄가 성립한다. 나아가 가정폭력처벌법 제63조 제1항 제2호가 정한 ‘피해자보호명령을 받고 이를 이행하지 아니한 가정폭력행위자’란 피해자의 청구에 따라 가정폭력행위자로 인정되어 피해자보호명령을 받았음에도 이행하지 않은 사람을 말하고, 피해자보호명령이 항고심에서 절차적 사유로 취소되었음에 불과한 이상 피해자보호명령에서 금지를 명한 행위를 한 경우에는 피해자보호명령 위반으로 인한 가정폭력처벌법 위반죄가 성립한다.
Order
원심판결 중 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울동부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part concerning the not guilty verdict, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.
Provisions referred to
가정폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제2조 제3호, 제11조, 제12조, 제40조 제1항, 제55조의2 제1항 제2호, 제3호, 제55조의4 제1항, 제2항, 제63조 제1항 제2호, 구 가정보호심판규칙(2020. 12. 28. 대법원규칙 제2940호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제67조의6 제1항, 가정보호심판규칙 제67조의23 제3항, 형사소송법 제42조, 제380조
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