Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the victim’s investigative agency and the court below’s statements, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) knew that the victim was a minor under 13 years of age at the time of committing the crime as stated in each of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant was the victim under 13 years of age at the time of sexual intercourse with the victim.

The court below acquitted all of the facts charged on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the misunderstanding of facts or the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Minors under the age of 13), thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a three-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

[Defendant and his defense counsel asserted as the ground for appeal that there was a misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was initially found guilty at the original trial court, but withdrawn the above argument at the first trial date, and thus, they cannot be judged separately.]

2. Determination

A. On November 2016, 2016, the Defendant was aware of the victim D (the age of 12) through the “G”, which was the mid-to mid-to mid-to long-term app, and the victim himself was 13 years old, on the grounds that the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on each of the facts charged.