아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)등
The judgment below
The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B for two years and six months, respectively.
The lower court rendered a judgment to dismiss the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, which was found guilty and the protective observation order, and only the Defendants appealed.
Therefore, the part of the order to observe the protection order is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Monitoring of Electronic Devices, because there is no benefit in appeal.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal included the assertion that the Defendants were erroneous in the initial grounds for appeal (as stated in the facts charged, the Defendants’ assertion that they did not engage in sexual traffic, but did not constitute “business” as it was stated in the facts charged), but the Defendants withdrawn the assertion that they were erroneous as the indictment was modified in the trial as follows.
Improper sentencing: The punishment of the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.
3. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.
In the first instance, the prosecutor changed Article 15(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse to “Article 15(2)3 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” among the facts charged against the Defendants, and applied for the amendment of the Act to delete the part “business” in the facts charged against the above part, and the court permitted it and changed to the part subject to the judgment.
As a result, the part of the judgment of the court below that rendered a single sentence by treating the modified part and the remaining guilty part as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part of the case of the defendant cannot be maintained as is.
4. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendant's case is reversed ex officio. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the defendants' unfair argument of sentencing.