아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(위계등간음)등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine [the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the purchase, etc. of sex)] did not know the fact that the victim F was a juvenile, and did not look at the victim for the purpose of deception of the victim’s sex.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of the sexual traffic prevention program) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant and the victim’s age, the victim’s psychological status on the day of the instant case; and (b) the circumstances leading the Defendant’s physical body to sexual intercourse in the underground of the apartment house in which the victim was living together; and (c) the Defendant exercised an intangible force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will.
It is sufficient to see.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and the victim’s appearance, legal attitude, method of statement, circumstance where the Defendant and the victim met, details of conversation between the Defendant and the victim and the victim through the hard app and the purport thereof, the lower court, which determined that the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the victim was a minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual traffic, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant had induced the victim.
The decision was determined.
① The victim was 17 years of age at the time of the instant case as I’s birth. The Defendant and the Defendant were 19 years of age prior to the delivery.