<Case Brief>

Court

Supreme Court of Korea


Division / Presiding Justice

Criminal Division 2

Presiding Justice: Park Young-jae


Decision Date

February 2, 2026


Disposition

Reversed and remanded (파기환송) to the Jeju District Court



—

Holding

The Supreme Court held that returning home even 10 minutes past a court-ordered curfew while wearing an electronic ankle monitor constitutes an intentional violation, regardless of prior notice to probation officers.


—

Key Facts

The defendant, A (in his 60s), had been convicted of a sexual offense against a minor in 2011.

He served 10 years in prison and was subject to:

15 years of electronic monitoring, and

Additional conditions including:

No alcohol consumption above 0.08%, and

Mandatory curfew from 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. for three years.



In January 2023, A drank near his residence and attempted to return home.

Unable to find a taxi, he:

Notified probation officers that he was walking home and would be slightly late, and

Arrived more than 10 minutes after midnight.


A probation officer observed him returning to his residence.


—

Lower Court Rulings

Trial court:

Found a violation of the alcohol restriction,

But acquitted A of the curfew violation.


Appellate court:

Affirmed the acquittal,

Reasoning that:

A had notified authorities in advance, and

The purpose of the curfew restriction was effectively fulfilled.



—

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

Curfew rules are time-specific and absolute.
The Court emphasized that the electronic monitoring statute defines clearly specified time blocks during which the offender must remain inside the residence.

No de minimis exception.
Returning home even 10 minutes late qualifies as a violation of compliance obligations.

No “legitimate excuse” recognized
Transportation difficulties and prior notification do not constitute justifiable grounds under the statute.

Intent inferred from conduct.
The Court found intent (고의) satisfied because:

A knowingly remained outside during restricted hours, and

The obligation is one of strict temporal compliance, not best effort.



—

Legal Basis

Under the Electronic Monitoring Act, violating compliance conditions without just cause may result in:

Up to one year of imprisonment, or

A fine of up to 10 million KRW.



—

Disposition

The acquittal on the curfew violation was overturned.

The case was remanded to the Jeju District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation.



—

Why This Case Matters

Establishes strict interpretation of curfew conditions.
Courts may no longer consider short delays or practical difficulties as mitigating factors.

Clarifies intent standard
“Intent” in electronic monitoring cases can be inferred from objective non-compliance, not subjective explanations.

Signals tougher judicial stance on monitoring compliance.
Especially in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.

Practical warning for monitored individuals.
Compliance conditions are rules, not guidelines.


—

Takeaway

> When the law sets a curfew, it means the clock—not the excuse—decides compliance. Even ten minutes can undo an acquittal.

Article: https://m.edaily.co.kr/News/Read?mediaCodeNo=257&newsId=01767926645346584&utm_source=https://n.news.naver.com/article/018/0006211057?cds=news_my