I ordered you to run an errand, but a’sex offender with an electronic anklet’ came. [한승곤의 사건수첩]

Sex offenses again at the customer’s home through an errand company
Court “Company, pay 10 million won to customers”
Citizens are struggling to “extend employment restrictions to filter out sex offenders”

[아시아경제 한승곤 기자] A convict of a sex crime visits a customer’s home through a manpower brokerage platform app (errand company) and commits a sex crime again, causing controversy. The court ruled that companies that linked sex offenders to customers’ homes were also liable.

However, voices are growing as to whether it is necessary to prevent crime or prevent this from happening before legal punishment. It is a claim to increase the number of employment sectors in which sex crime history can be searched. Experts suggested that social discussion is necessary.

According to media reports on the 23rd, the court ruled that Company B should compensate Mr. A with 10 million won in an appeal trial for damages claim filed by Mr. A (victim) against Company B.

In June 2018, Mr. A hired two people, including Mr. C, in a job app run by Company B to move his luggage from his home. However, Mr. C was an ex-convict with a history of sexual crime. C, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for criticism such as rape in 2008, and was released in 2017, was wearing an electronic anklet after receiving an order to attach an electronic device for 10 years.

Mr. C, who went into Mr. A’s room for work such as moving his luggage, suddenly threatened Mr. A with a weapon and attempted sexual assault, but when he heard the ringtone of the apartment, he stopped and ran away. Mr. C was charged with this case and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

A was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and filed a lawsuit for damages of 50 million won against the company. The first trial court ruled against the plaintiff.

The Appeals Tribunal said, “Even though the identification process of Company B was not sufficiently verified, the identities of workers were strictly verified and advertised as if they were trusted people without worrying about safety.” That’s true.”

Company B ran an advertisement saying that there was no safety problem by verifying the identity of the worker while running a job application that the worker offered compensation when the customer posted work on the bulletin board. However, in the verification process, it was difficult to confirm the criminal history of Mr. C, as it was only to confirm the name and contact information.

However, the court did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that the company assisted the crime by not faithfully performing the platform worker management supervision. The judge said, “It is difficult to say that the crime could be predicted, although the company has not been able to detect in advance that the company has been criminally punished for sexual crime and is wearing an electronic anklet.”

◆ Citizens complained of anxiety, “A crime that anyone can face… can’t we stop it at all?”

However, apart from the contents of the judgment by the court, similar crimes can occur as many times as possible if a job search is conducted without disclosing the history of sex crimes as in the case of Mr. C’s crime. In addition, citizens’ anxiety is growing as a situation where similar crimes can occur anytime, anywhere, even if the business type is not obligated to check criminal history even if they want to check criminal history.

Mr. Kim, a 30-year-old office worker, said, “Isn’t there a very problem with hiding the facts of a sex crime and entering someone else’s house to work?”

In the Cheong Wa Dae national petition, a petition to prevent a situation in which a person with a history of sexual offenses could enter the house and work has been filed.

Petitioner said, “Currently, people with a history of sexual crimes can engage in home-visit jobs such as delivery.” I’m curious to be able to engage.”

“People who have a home visitor’s job can easily get the address and phone number of their customers,” he said. “I think at least those who have a history of sexual offenses should be restricted to home visits.”

However, unlike citizens’ anxiety and petitioners’ appeals, when looking at the employment restriction system for sex offenders, it is mainly kindergarten and elementary school. Employment is restricted only to businesses such as secondary schools, academies, classrooms, child welfare facilities, sports facilities, and private tutoring. Security corporations (only for security workers), Internet computer game facility providers (general PC rooms), complex distribution game providers (multi-rooms). This also applies to youth game providers (general arcades).

As in this case, employment is not restricted in the case of businesses that face employees, such as errands. As there are no related laws and regulations, there is no sharp method in the situation of the business owner.

The same is true of the obligation to check the history of sex offenses. According to the related system, `the head of an agency related to children and youth must apply for a sexual crime record inquiry to the police station and respond to a sexual crime record inquiry for a person who is employed or is actually providing labor at that institution, or who intends to get a job or actually provides labor. It only stipulates that you must receive a letter and check whether you have a sexual offense history.

This is the reason why there are appeals to stop the employment of sex offenders not only in children and youth-related organizations, but also at least in the business sector where they visit and work at home.

The expert suggested that the system should be supplemented, but that social discussion is necessary. Yoon-sung Oh, a professor of police administration at Soonchunhyang University, emphasized that “a kind of face-to-face business where people meet and work can be minimized crime prevention only if there is a’sex crime history check’ procedure.” Regarding the further expansion of the criminal history inquiry sector in the employment sector, he added, “In the case of industries that are not obligated to check criminal history, there is no legal basis, and there are factors that infringe on human rights such as employment restrictions, so this is a part that requires discussion or consensus socially.” .

Reporter Han Seung-gon [email protected]