The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal No. 2, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, even though the Defendant did not know that D was a minor, as to the charge of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic.

(Defense Counsel has asserted unfair sentencing on the date of the first trial of the trial, but this is subsequent to the submission period of the grounds of appeal, and it does not decide separately on the grounds that it is subsequent to the expiration of the submission period of the grounds of appeal).

A. The summary of the facts charged under paragraph (2) of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was aware that D and 130,000 won (the age of 16) were a juvenile after having been engaged in sexual intercourse with D and D at his own house through the Internet hosting site in December 201; and (b) had been aware that D and D were a juvenile, on February 24, 2012; and (c) had been given KRW 110,00 to a child or juvenile by providing D and 110,000 won in return; and (d) had the child or juvenile sexual intercourse at the above Defendant’s house around February 23:00.

나. 공소사실 제2항에 관한 원심판결의 요지 원심은 그 판시 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 ① 피고인이 원심 법정에서 2012. 2. 24. 이전에 D과 피고인이 건네준 카드 사용 문제로 다투다가 D이 피고인에게 ‘카드는 이미 버렸으니까 경찰에 신고하던지 말든지 니가 알아서 해라. 그리고 난 미성년자다’라는 취지의 말을 들었다고 진술한 점, ② 피고인이 D에게 2012. 2. 24. 만나자고 문자를 보내면서 D과 ‘만날 수 있나요/ 네/ 나 너 아는데 상관없니 / 누군데여ㅋ / 카드 / 뭔 카드 / 마티즈오빠야 / 경찰서 같이 가려고 / 이번에 너 도움주고 만나려고 / ㅋㅋ 왜 이제 돈 생깃나 / 장난 진짜 안해, 안되니’ 등의 문자를 주고 받은 후 D을 만난 점, ③ D의 외모와 말투가 앳되어 피고인으로서는 충분히 D이 청소년으로 의심할 수 있었을 것으로 보이는...