The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the lower court acknowledged admissibility of the police’s statement protocol against F, which the Defendant did not consent as evidence.

However, this is contrary to Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Limitation of Professional Evidence and Probative Value of Evidence, and Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Exception to Probative Value of Evidence, which is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and violating the rules of evidence.

2) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse by inducing the victim F as stated in the facts constituting a crime of the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Article 7 of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, Etc. (hereinafter “missing Child Act”) provides that the subject shall be “any person” and there is no limitation on the subject of the crime.

Considering that the legislative purpose of the law of the missing child is to punish the act of having the kidnapped victimized child keep away from his/her protection, the defendant's act of bringing the victimized child out of his/her custody for about seven days until the victimized child is discovered after inducing the victimized child for sexual intercourse purpose constitutes a violation of the law of the missing child separately.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination whether F is admissible as evidence of the police’s statement protocol against F) does not agree to the lower court’s admission of the police’s statement protocol to F as evidence, and the said statement protocol was not made in the “specific condition” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it is admissible as evidence.