아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강제추행)등
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.
Defendant.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 10 million, etc.) is deemed an unhued and unfair.
2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant has no history of criminal punishment in the past; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; and (c) the Defendant paid the victim KRW 10 million to the victim and agreed that the victim does not want to punish the Defendant.
However, sexual buying crimes against children and juveniles are highly harmful in that they prevent the healthy growth of children and juveniles at the stage of establishing sexual identity and values, and obstruct the establishment of a proper and sound sexual culture in our society.
Although the Defendant had held a hosting for sexual traffic and had a sexual relationship with a minor who became aware of such conduct, the Defendant asked the other party to “whether or not” may be a minor at the time of the occurrence of sexual intercourse, and even though the other party was aware that he was a minor, the Defendant committed the instant crime (the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant and the fourth police statement against M).
Nevertheless, unlike the statements made by the police in the prosecution, the Defendant only denied that the other party to sexual traffic did not know that he/she was a child or juvenile, but also testified that he/she committed the instant crime (the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement) by means of the words “20 suicide,” unlike the statement made by the police, is doubtful as to whether it is against the authenticity of the instant crime.
In full view of all such circumstances and the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing cases in the same and similar cases, the lower court’s sentence is unreasonable as it is unreasonable.
Therefore, the prosecutor's improper sentencing on this point.