However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant left one’s contact address along with an Internet NAV carpet “B” bulletin board. On April 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay the price for sexual intercourse to C (V, the age of 14), a juvenile who reported and contacted the sexual intercourse, and agreed to pay the price for sexual intercourse.

1. On April 21, 2013, around 19:00 on April 21, 2013, the Defendant provided to C with a single sexual intercourse with C on the first floor in the East Sea, with a single sexual intercourse of KRW 100,000 in return, thereby purchasing the sex of children and juveniles.

2. On May 5, 2013, at around 14:00, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with C with C on a single occasion and provided a 100,000 won in return, thereby purchasing the sex of children and juveniles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on internal investigation and reports on internal investigation (verification of photographs of victims of internal investigation);

1. Article 10 (1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) that provides for the pertinent statutory provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, an aggravated punishment as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as provided for in the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which is heavier than the punishment, as of April 21, 2013);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 13(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse have a duty to protect and supervise juveniles as mature citizens.

However, the Defendant purchased the sex of a young juvenile who lacks the judgment ability for sexual self-determination, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, in order to satisfy his or her sexual desire by neglecting such obligation.

In addition, the mother of victimized juveniles is trying to punish the defendant.

This situation is examined.