아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성매수등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The Defendant, as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, has committed the act of purchasing the sex of G, but G was not aware of the fact that G was a juvenile, there was no intention to commit a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sex purchase).
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 40 hours of lecture attendance order, 40 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court of the relevant legal principle as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.
Unless there exist special circumstances to view that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, or considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065, Mar. 25, 2010). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier.