Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Whether conduct amounts to unreported protection of a missing child
Supreme Court, Feb. 26, 2026, 2025Do19813 (judgment)
Case name: 간음유인·미성년자의제강간·실종아동등의보호및지원에관한법률위반[실종아동등에 대한 미신고 보호행위가 있었는지 여부가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under what standard is it decided whether conduct constitutes 'protection' within Article 17(i) and Article 7 of the Missing Children Act, so that keeping a missing child without reporting to the head of a police station is criminally punishable?
Holding
Conduct is 'protection' under Article 7 where, taking the ordinary meaning of the word and the purpose of the Act together with the relationship between the actor and the missing child, the child's age, development and condition, the motive and concrete form of the conduct, the nature of any goods or services provided and how far they contribute to food, clothing and shelter, the time the actor spent with the child, and the effect of the conduct on the child's discovery and return, it can reasonably be seen in line with social common sense as an act that keeps danger or difficulty from the child's life, body and health by providing basic elements of living. Keeping a 14-year-old missing child in a motel from about 03:01 to 07:56 on 9 March 2025 without reporting her to the head of a police station fell within that standard.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
실종아동 등에 대한 생활의 기본요소 제공 등을 통해 실종아동 등의 생명·신체·건강 등에 위험·곤란이 미치지 않도록 하는 행위로 볼 수 있는지를 주된 기준으로 하여 사회통념에 따라 합리적으로 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
whether it may be regarded as an act that prevents danger or difficulty from affecting the life, body, health, etc. of a missing child or other person, by providing the basic elements of living for a missing child or other person, must be the principal criterion, and a reasonable determination must be made in accordance with socially accepted ideas.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
개별 사안에 드러난 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여, 실종아동 등에 대한 생활의 기본요소 제공 등을 통해 실종아동 등의 생명·신체·건강 등에 위험·곤란이 미치지 않도록 하는 행위로 볼 수 있는지를 주된 기준으로 하여 사회통념에 따라 합리적으로 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking into comprehensive consideration the various circumstances revealed in the individual case, whether it may be regarded as an act that prevents danger or difficulty from affecting the life, body, health, etc. of a missing child or other person, by providing the basic elements of living for a missing child or other person, must be the principal criterion, and a reasonable determination must be made in accordance with socially accepted ideas.
Factors
- 행위자와 실종아동 등의 관계
- 실종아동 등의 나이·발달정도와 상태
- 행위의 동기·경위와 구체적 양태
- 행위자가 실종아동 등과 함께 있었던 시간이나 기간
- 행위가 실종아동 등의 발견과 복귀에 미치는 영향
Unofficial English translation
• The relationship between the actor and the missing child or other person
• The age, level of development, and condition of the missing child or other person
• The motive, circumstances, and specific manner of the act
• The length of time or period during which the actor was together with the missing child or other person
• The effect of the act on the discovery and return of the missing child or other person
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much time spent with a missing child, and what kind of goods or services, are needed before conduct can be seen as providing basic elements of living under Article 7?
A later decision that gives different weight to the hours spent together or to the absence of any food, lodging or service would change how this standard reads on a given file. An amendment to Article 7 or Article 17(i) of the Missing Children Act would require the entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “How much time spent with a missing child, and what kind of goods or services, are needed before conduct can be seen as providing basic elements of living under Article 7?” vs Independent “What circumstances constitute a justifiable reason for protecting a missing person without reporting to the police?”
The primary asks what duration and support qualify as protection, whereas the independent asks what justifies protection without reporting.
실종아동 등에 대한 생활의 기본요소 제공 등을 통해 실종아동 등의 생명·신체·건강 등에 위험·곤란이 미치지 않도록 하는 행위로 볼 수 있는지를 주된 기준으로 하여 사회통념에 따라 합리적으로 판단해야 한다.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 High Court, Chuncheon, in its judgment of 5 November 2025 (2025No137), held that the defendant's conduct of keeping the victim, a missing child who was a 14-year-old girl, in a motel from about 03:01 to 07:56 on 9 March 2025 without reporting her to the head of a police station carried the risk of hindering her prompt discovery and return, and was therefore the unreported protection prohibited by Article 7 of the Missing Children Act. On that basis it found the Missing Children Act count of the indictment guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the standard it had set and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not misapprehended the meaning of 'protection' under Article 17(i) and Article 7 in any way that affected the judgment. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Conduct that cannot be seen as providing basic elements of living so as to keep danger or difficulty from the child's life, body or health, since that is the main criterion the Court laid down.
- A person who is not a 'missing child etc.' under Article 2(i) or (ii) of the Act, that is, not a child under 18 at the time of going missing, a person with an intellectual, autistic or mental disability under Article 2 of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, or a dementia patient under Article 2(2) of the Dementia Management Act.
- Keeping a missing child where there is a justified reason, or where the child has been reported to the head of a police station, since Article 7 prohibits unreported protection only.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each circumstance the Court named: the relationship to the child, her age and condition, the motive and the concrete form of the conduct, any food, lodging or other service given and how far it supported basic living, the hours spent together, and the effect on discovery and return. Confirm first that the person was a 'missing child etc.' under Article 2 and that there was no justified reason and no report to the head of a police station.
From the official text
Points at issue
어떤 행위가 ‘실종아동등의 보호 및 지원에 관한 법률’ 제17조 제1호, 제7조의 ‘보호’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
Criteria for determining whether a certain act falls under "protection" as used in Article 17, subparagraph 1 and Article 7 of the Act on the Protection and Support of, etc. of Missing Children
Summary of the holding
실종아동등의 보호 및 지원에 관한 법률(이하 ‘실종아동법’이라 한다)은 실종아동 등의 발생을 예방하고 조속한 발견과 복귀를 도모하며 복귀 후의 사회 적응을 지원함으로써 실종아동 등과 가정의 복지증진에 이바지함을 목적으로 한다(제1조). ‘실종아동 등’이란 약취·유인 또는 유기되거나 사고를 당하거나 가출하거나 길을 잃는 등의 사유로 인하여 보호자로부터 이탈된 아동 등, 즉 실종 당시 18세 미만인 아동, 장애인복지법 제2조의 장애인 중 지적장애인, 자폐성장애인 또는 정신장애인, 치매관리법 제2조 제2호의 치매환자를 말하는데(제2조 제1호, 제2호), 누구든지 정당한 사유 없이 실종아동 등을 경찰관서의 장에게 신고하지 아니하고 보호할 수 없으며(제7조), 이를 위반한 미신고 보호행위는 형사처벌 대상이 된다(제17조 제1호). 어떤 행위가 제17조 제1호, 제7조의 ‘보호’에 해당하는지를 판단할 때는, 그 단어의 통상적 의미(‘보호’는 ‘위험이나 곤란 따위가 미치지 아니하도록 잘 보살펴 돌보는 행위’를 의미한다), 실종아동법의 입법 목적에다가 행위자와 실종아동 등의 관계, 실종아동 등의 나이·발달정도와 상태, 행위의 동기·경위와 구체적 양태, 실종아동 등에게 제공된 재화나 용역 등이 있는 경우 그 성격 및 그것이 의식주 등 생존과 기본적인 생활 유지에 기여하는 정도, 행위자가 실종아동 등과 함께 있었던 시간이나 기간, 행위가 실종아동 등의 발견과 복귀에 미치는 영향 등 개별 사안에 드러난 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여, 실종아동 등에 대한 생활의 기본요소 제공 등을 통해 실종아동 등의 생명·신체·건강 등에 위험·곤란이 미치지 않도록 하는 행위로 볼 수 있는지를 주된 기준으로 하여 사회통념에 따라 합리적으로 판단해야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
실종아동등의 보호 및 지원에 관한 법률 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제2호, 제7조, 제17조 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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