Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 (the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the purchase, etc. of sex)) did not recognize that the Defendant was a child or juvenile at the time of committing the crime set forth in Article 1-B of the Criminal Act as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (a period of four years and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding (the fact that Defendant B is in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (mediations, etc.)), A, H and AI statements, part of the Defendant’s statement, real estate intermediaries’ statement, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic with A even at the time of initial employment of H, even at the time of initial employment of H.

Nevertheless, the court below adopted the part of the statements made by A, H, and AI without credibility and found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s respective sentences (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years and six months, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year, one year of suspended execution for a period of two years, etc.) against the illegal Defendants are deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court fully recognized that the Defendant purchased the sex while recognizing that H was a child or juvenile on August 2019.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) In the second prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant employed as a manager with the knowledge that he is a minor of H, and engaged in key room business, and engaged in acts similar to H.