All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The case concerning the accused;

The previous Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012)

E. The Act on Special Cases Concerning Sexual Violence (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”)

(3) Article 11 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012)

The Act on the Protection of Children's Sex Offenses (hereinafter referred to as "Child Protection Act").

In comparison with the elements for the crime of violation of Article 7(4) and (3) of the Act and Article 299 of the Criminal Act, each of the above crimes is different from the object and form of the act, and the awareness of being a child or juvenile. The elements for the crime of violation of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence do not include all the elements for the crime of violation of Article 7(4) and (3) of the Child Sex Protection Act, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the former cannot be deemed as having a special relationship with the latter. Therefore, the proviso of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence stipulates that the crime of violation of Article 11 of the Sexual Violence Act (the proviso of Article 16 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence against a child or juvenile) is a crime of non-compliance with the intent to commit a crime

Furthermore, the charges charged for violating Article 7(4) and (3) of the Child Protection Act, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act do not constitute a crime of non-prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6503, Aug. 30, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and legal provisions, the prosecutor and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendant”).

It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which the court below convicted the defendant in this case, which was prosecuted as a violation of Article 7(4) and (3) of the Child Protection Act, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act, not a violation of Article 11 of the Sexual Violence Act, is not a violation of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Children's Sex Offenses Act, and there is no violation of law as to Article 16 of the

B. The reasoning of the judgment below is recorded.