Top court rules that arriving home 10 minutes after curfew violates electronic-monitoring compliance
Published: 02 Feb. 2026, 14:52
Updated: 02 Feb. 2026, 17:51
![A security electronic tag is wrapped around a person's ankle in this file photo. [GETTY IMAGES BANK]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2026/02/02/7e3a5f55-eed6-41fa-86f5-09ba9e0fdc23.jpg)
A security electronic tag is wrapped around a person's ankle in this file photo. [GETTY IMAGES BANK]
The Supreme Court ruled that returning home just 10 minutes late during a midnight curfew is enough to violate the terms of electronic monitoring, setting a new legal standard for interpreting curfew compliance.
The top court's ruling overturned a lower court decision that had acquitted a defendant accused of breaching curfew and sent the case back to the Jeju District Court for reconsideration, legal officials said Monday.
The defendant was ordered to wear the ankle bracelet after being convicted in 2011 of raping a minor and was sentenced to 10 years in prison along with 15 years of electronic monitoring. They were released in October 2020.
A court had imposed a special condition barring the defendant from leaving their residence during the overnight hours of midnight to 6 a.m. between Nov. 15, 2022 and Nov. 14, 2025. The order was issued under the Act on Electronic Monitoring Devices, which allows authorities to restrict outings during specific time periods, including nighttime hours.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with violating the curfew after the defendant visited a karaoke-style bar in Jeju on Jan. 17, 2023. Unable to find a taxi, the defendant walked home and arrived at the residence at 12:10 a.m., remaining outside for 10 minutes past the start of the curfew.
Both the trial court and the appellate court found the defendant not guilty of violating the curfew. The trial court ruled that “a single instance of returning home at 12:10 a.m. cannot be considered a legal violation” and that it was difficult to conclude the defendant had acted with intent.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
In its ruling, the court said the defendant had received education on curfew compliance and lacked a justifiable reason for staying outside the residence after midnight, concluding that intent could be established based on the circumstances.
"Curfew compliance under the electronic monitoring law should be interpreted as requiring individuals, in principle, to remain at their residence during designated restricted hours throughout the monitoring period," the top court said.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY KIM BO-REUM [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)