However, since only the prosecutor appealed against the dismissal of prosecution among the judgment below, the part which the court below found guilty is separated and finalized, and only the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.), which made the judgment dismissing the prosecution, belongs to the scope of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985 Decided November 25, 2010, etc.). The summary of the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). The lower court: (a) agreed on the time, place, amount, etc. of sexual intercourse with the above male through a smartphone-rating display method for about 15 times from the early policeman of January 2013 to the early policeman of March 2013; and (b) agreed on the time, place, etc. of sexual intercourse with the above male; and (c) agreed on the time, place, amount, etc. of sexual intercourse with the above male; and (d) obtained money from the above male to KRW 120,000,000 from the above male; and (d) concluded a sexual relationship with the above male; (c) thereby, the Defendant cannot be deemed as constituting a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

However, this part of the facts charged should be deemed to have been specified to the maximum extent possible by comprehensively taking into account the statements of the victim, witness, and the accused.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the prosecution on the ground that this part of the facts charged is not specified is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.