The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant A) has arranged sexual traffic against L, children and juveniles J and K, the Defendant does not engage in “business” or “business”.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the Defendants: (i) imprisonment for a maximum term of three years and six months; (ii) a short term of three years; (iii) an order to complete a program; (ii) a long term of two years and six months; (iii) a short term of two years and six months; (iv) a order to complete a program; (iii) a defendant C: a term of three years and six months; and (v) an order to complete a program of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

[On the other hand, Defendant C’s defense counsel submitted a summary of the oral argument to the effect that the lower court’s judgment on January 12, 2018, each of the facts charged for arranging sexual traffic and the period for registering personal information, which was after the closure of the oral argument at the trial. However, Defendant C and the defense counsel acknowledged all the facts charged at the first trial date at the trial at the trial court at the trial court at the same time, and asserted only unfair sentencing grounds (the same purport as well as the grounds for appeal submitted by the defense counsel), and even if ex officio examined, there are errors in the lower judgment

[I shall not deem]

2. Determination

A. The “juvenile” to which the Juvenile Act applies, refers to a person under the age of 19 (Article 2 of the Juvenile Act). Thus, if the Defendant wishes to be subject to the Juvenile Act, it shall be under the age of 19 at the time of adjudication, and whether the Defendant is a juvenile under Articles 60(1) and 60(2) of the Juvenile Act shall be determined at the time of adjudication, namely, at the time of adjudication of the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do539, Apr. 24, 1990; 200Do2704, Aug. 18, 2008, etc.). According to the records, the Defendant was under the age of 19 when the lower judgment was declared as AC, but the Defendant was under the age of 19 as of the date of pronouncement of this judgment, but did not fall under the juvenile law under the age of 19 as of the date of adjudication, it shall be mitigated under Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act.