(b) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Acts such as Fraudulent Means);

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, deemed the victim as a child or juvenile under the protection and supervision of the Defendant during the period in which the victim was employed as a fixed-term teacher of the middle school in which the victim was enrolled, and increased by half the statutory penalty by applying Article 18 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant provisions and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “protection and supervision” under Article 18 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, or by violating

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo