For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and applied Article 18 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse to the crime within the said period, deeming the victim as a child or juvenile under the protection and supervision of the Defendant during the period in which the Defendant served as a fixed-term teacher of the middle school in which the victim attends.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant provisions and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “protection and supervision” under Article 18 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse or by violating the principle of no punishment without

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.