실종아동등의보호및지원에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) shows that the Defendant had been in custody of the Defendant, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant had been in custody of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant demanded the sexual intercourse to B; (c) the Defendant was in the Gu lecture; (d) even if the Defendant has a intellectual disability, it appears that the Defendant had the ability to make reasonable judgment to know that he should report the missing child; (b) the Defendant’s age; (c) the Defendant had moved from the Defendant to the Gangnamnam Station located in Gangwon-do and Gangwon-do; and (d) the Defendant had lent the phone to the Defendant to use the phone, but the Defendant refused to use it
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
(a) No person charged may protect a missing child, etc. without reporting it to the chief of a police office without good cause;
Nevertheless, at around 20:30 on February 9, 2019, the Defendant fleded from B (here, 16 years of age), a missing child, who was hospitalized at the same hospital in the past, and was aware of the fact that he had taken a call to the effect that he was “the taxi expenses to board and leave the taxi.” On February 10, 2019, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that he left the aforementioned missing child, was released from the said missing child, he was released from the “Dative Care Center” located in Kangyang-gun, Suwon-gun, Suwon-gun, where the Defendant was living.
The Defendant was taking missing children from around 01:30 on February 10, 2019 to 07:00 on the same day from around 01:0 to from around 07:00 on the same day, and continued to move from around 09:00 on the same day to “F school” located in Gangwon-gun E, and was taking away the missing children from around 09:00 on the same day, and thereafter, the Defendant moved from around 18:00 to 2:30 on the same day.