A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around March 16, 2013, the Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (sexual traffic) committed sexual traffic by 150,000 won by misunderstanding D (16 years of age) that he/she came to know through Internet hosting at an unmanned telecomoning in the vicinity of the city of drinking water as 21 years of age, and by paying 150,000 won to the female in return.

2. Around March 29, 2013, the Defendant, in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sexual purchase, etc.), provided that he/she had become aware of the fact that he/she was a juvenile of 16 years of age in women E, compared with the aforementioned D, and provided 150,000 won to such female in return for the comparison.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of letters between D and A;

1. Relevant Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. against Criminal Facts, and Article 10(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); and the choice of imprisonment with labor for each type of crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up long-term punishments);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the main sentence of Article 13(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse is deemed to have purchased sex against a juvenile aged 16, and the crime of this case is not good in light of the circumstance and method of the crime, and the fact that the defendant affected the formation of sexual values of the juvenile subject to sexual purchase. However, the crime of this case is determined as ordered by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's confession and reflect, the fact that the defendant has no record of the same kind of crime in sex purchase, and the fact that the defendant has no record of the defendant's sex purchase, etc., and all other circumstances