Sent on an Errand, but a 'Sex Offender Wearing an Electronic Ankle Bracelet' Showed Up [Han Seung-gon's Case Notebook]

Sex Offender Commits Sexual Crime Again at Customer's Home via Errand Service
Court Orders "Service to Compensate Customer 10 Million Won"
Citizens Demand "Expansion of Employment Restrictions to Filter Sex Offenders" in Outrage

Electronic monitoring bracelet. The photo is unrelated to specific expressions in the article. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Seung-gon] Outrage has erupted as a sex offender visited a customer's home through a manpower brokerage platform app (errand service) and committed another sex crime. The court ruled that the company connecting the sex offender to the customer's home is also responsible.

However, voices are growing that crime prevention should come before legal punishment, or that such incidents should be prevented from happening in the first place. There are calls to expand the fields where sex crime records can be checked for employment. Experts suggest that social discussion is necessary.

According to media reports on the 23rd, the court ruled in the appeal trial of a damages claim lawsuit filed by A (the victim) against errand service company B that B must compensate A with 10 million won.

In June 2018, A hired two people, including C, through a recruitment app operated by company B to move belongings at home. However, C was a convicted sex offender. C had been sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2008 for rape and injury charges and was released in 2017. He was under a 10-year electronic monitoring order and was wearing an electronic ankle bracelet.

C entered A's room to move belongings and suddenly threatened A with a weapon, sexually assaulted her, and attempted rape. However, upon hearing the apartment doorbell, he stopped the crime and fled. C was prosecuted for this incident and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

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

The appellate court stated, "Although company B's verification process cannot be considered sufficient to verify identity, it advertised that workers' identities were strictly verified and that they were trustworthy people without safety concerns," adding, "This constitutes false and exaggerated advertising that is not true."

Company B operated a recruitment app where customers post job details on a bulletin board and workers propose wages, advertising that workers' identities were verified and there were no safety issues. However, the verification process only confirmed names and contact information, making it difficult to check C's criminal record.

However, the court did not accept the plaintiff's claim that the company abetted the crime by failing to properly supervise platform workers. The court stated, "Although the company failed to detect in advance C's criminal record for sex crimes and the fact that he was wearing an electronic ankle bracelet, it is difficult to say that the company could have anticipated the crime."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

◆ Citizens Express Anxiety: "Anyone Can Be a Victim... Can't It Be Prevented Altogether?"

Regardless of the court's ruling, if someone with a sex crime record like C does not disclose their criminal history and engages in employment activities, similar crimes can occur anytime. Moreover, even if people want to check criminal records, if the industry is not obligated to do so, similar crimes can happen anytime and anywhere, increasing citizens' anxiety.

Kim, a 30-something office worker, said, "It's a huge problem that someone hides their sex crime record and enters other people's homes to work," adding, "We don't know what might happen inside the house. Institutional measures are urgently needed."

A petition was also posted on the Blue House's National Petition platform, requesting to prevent people with sex crime records from entering homes to work.

The petitioner pointed out, "Currently, people with sex crime records can work in jobs involving home visits such as delivery," and said, "It is strange that people who have broken into locked doors or removed security bars to commit crimes can work in jobs involving home visits."

They continued, "People with jobs involving home visits can easily know customers' addresses and phone numbers," and appealed, "At least, people with sex crime records should be restricted from jobs involving home visits."

However, contrary to citizens' anxiety and the petitioner's appeal, the employment restriction system for sex offenders mainly limits employment in industries such as kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, academies, tutoring centers, child welfare facilities, sports facilities, and private tutors. It also applies to security service corporations (only security workers), internet computer game facilities (general PC rooms), complex distribution game facilities (multi-rooms), and youth game facilities (general arcades).

Industries like errand services, where employers directly meet employees as in this case, are not restricted from employment. Since there are no related legal regulations, employers have no effective measures.

The obligation to check sex crime records is the same. According to the system, "Heads of child and youth-related institutions must apply to the police for sex crime record checks for those employed or providing labor at the institution or those seeking employment or intending to provide labor, and must receive a reply to confirm the presence or absence of sex crime records." This means that industries other than these are not obligated to check sex crime or other criminal records.

This is why there are calls to block employment of sex offenders not only in child and youth-related institutions but at least in industries involving home visits.

Experts suggest system improvements but emphasize the need for social discussion. Oh Yoon-sung, a professor of Police Administration at Soonchunhyang University, stressed, "Face-to-face industries where people meet to work should have a 'sex crime record check' procedure to at least prevent crimes."

Regarding expanding criminal record checks to more employment sectors, he added, "For industries without an obligation to check criminal records, there is no legal basis, and employment restrictions involve human rights issues, so this requires social discussion and consensus."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.