beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts as to the part on the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (such as purchase of sex), the Defendant, rather than dialogueed through an application of F, “F,” but did not know that H was a juvenile.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 40 hours, and the lecture order for the prevention of sexual traffic) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court and the lower court’s judgment, and ① in the case of F in the investigative agency and the lower court, G in an investigation agency and the lower court’s “F” conversation with the Defendant on a DNA basis, the Defendant is not easy, and there is a defect in the conversation through I.
On the other hand, it is argued to the effect that the victim joined “F” after the instant case (the date of the instant case: October 11, 2016), that the Defendant made a concrete and consistent statement or prepared a written statement on the contents stated in Paragraph 1 of the instant facts charged; ② the Defendant also divided the conversations between the victim and I, other than I, through an I, and divided them into I Messen. The records are attached to the record; ③ the content of the I Messen is consistent with the facts stated in the lower judgment; ③ the actual victim’s age is Gar; ④ the Defendant joined “F” after the instant case (the date of the instant case: October 11, 2016). However, according to the inquiry of facts by the victim on May 12, 2017, the victim’s phone number (U) was the victim’s phone number.