The judgment below

Among them, on October 15, 2013, the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sexual purchase, etc.) is applied.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principle), the court below acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged in this case, although the defendant was found to have committed an act of buying the sex of the juvenile by paying the price to D (the age of 13, hereinafter "the juvenile of this case") who is the other party of the sexual purchase as stated in the facts charged, and by sexual intercourse, he was found to have committed an act of buying the sex of the juvenile. The court below

(1) The term "act of purchasing sex of a child or youth" means "act of purchasing sex of a child or youth by offering or promising to offer money or goods, other property benefits, duties, convenience, etc. to a child or youth for a child or youth, etc." In determining whether a defendant has a quid pro quo relationship with the act of offering accommodation, etc. to a child or youth in this case, the characteristics of the child or youth shall be considered.

② The lower court acquitted the instant juvenile on the grounds of not guilty of the fact that the instant juvenile made the phrase “not having been paid” at the lower court’s court court. However, the instant juvenile did not clearly understand the meaning of “price” as a multicultural family’s origin, and rather stated to the effect that “the Defendant provided sexual intercourse because he had offered accommodation.”

Whether there was a “price” relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with the instant juvenile, not based on the statement of the instant juvenile, but on the basis of objective facts, the court should make a legal determination on the basis of objective facts.

③ In particular, even though the instant juvenile clearly stated that the Defendant responded to sexual intercourse because the Defendant did not have any accommodation if he did not comply with the Defendant’s request for sexual intercourse on October 15, 2013, the lower court made it clear that the instant juvenile responded to sexual intercourse, the lower court.