The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is transferred to Sungwon District Court for the purpose of Sungnam Branch.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s threat of the victim’s mother to make himself/herself and video conversations by 12 years of age as if he/she were informed of the victim’s obscenity constitutes “act of having a child engage in obscene acts” under Article 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Uniforms Act or “sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, etc. that cause a sense of sexual humiliation to a child” under Article 17 subparag. 2 of the Child Uniforms Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which led to the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the facts charged in the instant case were examined as follows: (a) Articles 71(1)1 and 17 Subparag. 2 (a) of the former Child Uniforms Land Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014); (b) the prosecutor initially prosecuted the violation of the Child Uniforms Land Act; and (c) in the first instance, the prosecutor added “the point of sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, against the child (Article 17(1)2 and Article 17 Subparag. 4 of the former Child Uniforms Land Act)” to the ancillary charges.