Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a missing child C (14 years of age, female) and a deceased person who became aware of the missing child through mobile phone hosting display.

On October 16, 2014, the Defendant sent to the missing child C a letter "C" on a mobile phone-sharing fishing pattern, and sent C over-rating and telephone liaison.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was aware that he was a juvenile sent out in the course of dialogue with C, he accepted the request of C to send it with the Defendant, and was in order to move to D 203, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the Defendant’s dwelling place, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the Defendant protected the missing child without any justifiable reason, such as without reporting it to the police station, etc., from October 16, 2014 to October 19, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of the report on the occurrence of a person to leave home, such as a missing child, etc., and a copy of the detailed report on a missing child, etc.

1. Relevant Articles 17 and 7 of the Act on the Protection of and Support for Missing Children, etc. who are in the position to commit a crime and Articles 17 and 7 of the same Act.

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to each assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The mere fact that the defendant asserts that there is no awareness of illegality exists a justifiable reason to mislead the defendant that his act does not constitute a crime.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

2. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of claiming a political party’s act constituted a justifiable act on the grounds that it cannot be deemed to have satisfied the reasonableness of means and methods, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, and urgency or supplement.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.