For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the victim B of the violation of the Child Welfare Act against the victim B (the coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc. against the child), the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against the victim F (the pseudonym), and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the deceptive scheme, etc.).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “special cases concerning the calculation of the statute of limitations” under Article 7-3(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012) and Article 6 of the Addenda of the former Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “sexual abuse” in the crime of violating the Child Welfare Act (voluntary coercion, intermediary, and sexual harassment against a child).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.