The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to establish the “sale of children” under Article 17 subparag. 1 of the Child Welfare Act, the Defendant is required to “transfer of the real control over the children”. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have controlled the children by the real force, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant attempted to sell and sell children, thereby having committed an attempted crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the sale of children.

① The Defendant reported this article and contacted the victimized child with the victimized child, and there was no assault or intimidation in the first process of gathering the victimized child.

② The Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victimized child while drinking together at the her motherel, and thereafter, had sexual intercourse several times with the F, which is the Defendant’s seat, and had a sexual intercourse. However, there was no assault or intimidation against victimized child in the process, and the victimized child could leave F’s house at any time depending on her own will.

③ Even in the process of selling a victimized child to E, the Defendant knew in advance that the victimized child will move to another person’s house, consented to the victimized child, and if the victimized child does not want it, the Defendant did not attempt to send the victimized child to E.

④ The Criminal Act does not punish sexual intercourses by agreement with minors aged 13 or older. This is due to the recognition of sexual self-determination by which minors aged 13 or older can choose the other party to sexual intercourses and the other party to sexual intercourses. As such, whether victimized children are sexual intercourses with the Defendant at the age of 13 and in the process of sexual intercourses with the F.