beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prior to the instant case, the Defendant did not request G to give a separate identification card to G, which was the enemy to show the identification card written in 1992 as a 192 student, and received the identification card from E in 192. H and F continued to present the identification card, but G et al. refused to comply with the Defendant’s demand for leave without complying therewith.
Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of this case.
G et al., when intending to commit an illegal act, such as sexual traffic, in the instant telecom, the G et al. reported the Defendant to an investigative agency, and it is not reliable in the statement.
Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of facts in the court below which pronounced guilty as evidence.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may be found to have had the intent to commit the instant crime.
① At the time of entering the instant Moel, G was asked to submit an identification card by the Defendant, but was asked to be an adult, and thereafter, it was stated that all adults and adults did not request the submission of an identification card. He stated that he was requested to submit an identification card by the Defendant, and that he was going to enter the guest room, and that he was asked to produce an identification card later. In light of the fact that he did not request the submission of an identification card by the Defendant, and that he did not have been asked to submit an identification card, and that he was asked to receive an identification card later than G and E, and that he was given a statement that he was asked to receive only confirmation as to whether he was an adult from the Defendant through a personal phone in the guest room, the Defendant is both adults and the Defendant.