beta
Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The sentence shall be suspended against the defendant;
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the defendant got juveniles informed of sexual intercourse in the telecom operated by himself/herself, and there is sufficient evidence to support this, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no proof of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. At around 18:00 on August 20, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 30,000 from F (F), G (F), and H (F (F) from his own her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her (hereinafter “the instant her her her her her her she
B. Determination 1) Article 26-2 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no person shall conduct a business which disturbs public morals, such as allowing a juvenile to be accommodated in a sexual intercourse, or providing a place for such business. Considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect the juvenile from various harmful acts so that the juvenile can grow into a healthy person of character, “the sexual intercourse lodging” stipulated in the above Act is sufficient for both men and women, and it does not necessarily require both men and women to be juveniles. In addition, in light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act and the purport of prohibiting sexual intercourse businesses, even though there is no express provision on the age verification duty for juveniles, if a person engaged in a sexual intercourse business is suspected of being juveniles by the external appearance or pictures of the person who intends to be mentioned in the sexual intercourse, it shall be permitted to confirm whether they are juveniles or not by certain means, and only if it is confirmed that they are not juveniles, it shall be permitted to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201>