When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On December 2, 2016, the Defendant, among the police officers in Busan Dong-dong, had a child’s sexual intercourse with D (V, 17 years old), a juvenile who became aware of through “C”, a smartphone-rating app, in the trade influence room located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and paid 150,000 won as the price for sexual traffic.

2. On December 2, 2016, the Defendant, at the end of Busan Dong-dong, committed a sexual intercourse with D and paid 110,000 won to the price for sexual traffic in a mutual influorial telecom room located in Busan Dong-dong, Busan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Each investigation report, (A) detection and report of the violator of the laws and regulations, the details of the conversation, contact with the purchase of sex stored in the D mobile phone, and the application of the statutes on suspect pictures;

1. Article 13 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, which provides for the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for each of the offenses against children;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The main sentence of Article 21 (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children against Sexual Abuse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant recognizes the fact that sexual traffic has been conducted twice with D

However, D did not inform the defendant that he was a minor at the time of sexual traffic with the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant did not recognize that D was a juvenile at the time of sexual traffic in the above two times.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant is recognized as having engaged in sexual traffic with D and twice as stated in the facts constituting the crime, knowing that D was a child under the age of 19 years.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion.