A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not entirely engage in sexual traffic related to J, and the Defendant’s act involved in sexual traffic related to E and K is interested in having the other party to whom the conditions met at the Internet hosting site make telephone conversations and have E and K set the place of promise and purchase sex. This constitutes “a person who solicits, solicits, or compels another party to purchase sex of a child or juvenile for his/her business purposes” under Article 12(2)1 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse rather than “a person who mediates the purchase of sex of a child or juvenile or provides brokerage information through an information and communications network” under Article 12(1)2 of the same Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case as a business of arranging the purchase of child or juvenile sex, is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The Defendant agreed to pay 50% of the money received in exchange for sexual traffic by E and K to E and, from time to time, they cannot collect 11,910,000 won or more, which is 50% of the money received in exchange for sexual traffic confirmed on the account books, since they provided money to them or used it as expenses. The lower court collected 23,820,000 won or more, and the lower court erred in misapprehending the legal doctrine.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court, including the confession in the original court, the J’s investigation agency, and the statement in the original court, I would like to refer to the defendant to the conditions remaining on the Internet hosting site.