아동・청소년 대상 ‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’와 함정수사 - 18 U.S.C. §2422(b)의 규정 및 판례를 소재로-

Recently, sexual exploitation and sexual solicitation of children through the Internet have become a problem in many countries, including Korea. For example, in the United States, as of 2005, one in seven children were already receiving “unwanted sexual solicitation” through the Internet. In other words, the Internet has become an ideal tool for sexual offenders to hide their identities and select children who can become targets for crimes. Accordingly, the United States regulates such acts under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and similarly, Korea stipulates “conversational solicitation, etc.” crimes related to sexual exploitation of children and adolescents and “secret investigations” as an investigative method for such crimes under the “Juvenile Sexual Protection Act.” Due to the above legislative form, much controversy is expected in investigations and judicial practice surrounding the criteria for judging acts of solicitation and solicitation, and the interpretation and application of punishment provisions when the target of the act is an adult (investigator) rather than a child or adolescent. In this paper, with these issues in mind, we analyzed and evaluated several U.S. case laws to obtain certain implications related to the interpretation of the crime of inducement such as sexual exploitation conversation in Korea and the legitimacy of investigative agencies' nondisclosure of identity investigation methods. The main points of the contents are as follows In the United States, in the case of so-called entrapment investigations in which an investigator pretending to be a child chats with a criminal online, the perpetrator can be punished even if the other party is an adult (investigator) rather than a real child. And the time of commencement of execution is judged based on the ‘act of solicitation’ according to the ‘substantial step test.’ As a result, the defendants claim defenses based on impossibility, entrapment, wiretapping, violation of freedom of expression and due process, fantasy defense, etc., but none of these defenses are accepted. In conclusion, when interpreting and applying the punishment provisions of Article 15-2 of our country's Youth Protection Act, it is natural that the law should be strictly observed so that the individual's freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution, represented by the right to due process, are not unfairly violated. However, it should be given more priority to strictly apply and enforce the law and punish sex offenders who cause great harm by luring children using the Internet.