아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강요행위등)[예비적죄명:아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강요행위등)],군무이탈,아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등),미성년자유인,성매매유인
2021Do4042 Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (for example, coercion, etc.)
Non-crime Name: Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Grain)
[Acts, etc.] The Act on the Desertion of Military Service and the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse
Violation of rate (mediation, business conduct, etc.), minor inducement and inducement of sexual traffic;
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Jeong Byung-chul et al.
High Court for Armed Forces Decision 2020No315 Decided March 25, 2021
June 10, 2021
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below invoked the legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 74Do1519 Decided February 10, 1976 and the Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8135 Decided November 29, 2007 that "the victim who was a minor under 15 years of age at the time (hereinafter referred to as "victim") was under duty, employment, or other relationship includes a person in a situation under which he/she is under actual protection or supervision, and determined that the victim was guilty of his/her daily life by considering the following as a whole: ① the victim who was a minor under 15 years of age at the time (hereinafter referred to as "victim") was 5 years of age in the situation where he/she was under duty and supervision; ② the victim was under duty of care and supervision of the defendant and the victim was under actual control of sexual traffic; ② the victim was under duty of care and supervision of the victim, such as sexual traffic; ③ the victim was under de facto control or sexual traffic, and ④ the victim was under duty of care and supervision of the victim as a guardian of the victim.
Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relation of protection or supervision in the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the relation of public offering, the relation of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the relation of the receipt of crimes of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant
Justices Cho Jae-chul
Justices Min You-sook
Justices Lee Dong-won