A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 17, 2016, the Defendant violated the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, etc., read at the Defendant’s home located in Bupyeong-si C and 601 on October 17, 2016, the writing that “A person who will live together” of “A”, a juvenile from home posted on “D” of “A” of “A” of “A” of smartphone fluor, fluor, 14 years old.”

After the phrase “,” the day was 13:00 as of the same day, E was taken to the Defendant’s office.

Accordingly, the defendant protected the missing child without any justifiable reason without reporting it to the head of the police office.

2. On October 17, 2016, the Defendant violated the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., purchase of sex), provided 230,00 won, accommodation, etc. from around 16:0 to around 06:00 of the following month from around 18:00 to around 06:00 of the following month, and provided E with the taxi fare of 2.30,000 won, and provided E with the same two occasions as remuneration.

Accordingly, the defendant was committing the act of purchasing juvenile sex.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Details of a response to a request for appraisal and a text message;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel in the existing case of one unit of the seized mobile phone (G3, No. 1)

1. Although the gist of the assertion lies in the fact that the defendant did not report E, a missing child, to the head of the police office, however, it cannot be deemed as “protective” if a person who induced a minor, left the state of de facto control, and thus, the former State was on the police office.

The defendant, who caused the de facto control of the defendant's residence by changing E to a fathercheon-si with his residence, does not constitute a person who is prohibited from acts of protecting missing children under Article 7 of the Act on the Protection and Support of Missing Children, Etc. (hereinafter "missing Children Act").

Therefore, the crime of violating the law of missing children is not established in the judgment of the defendant.

2. Article 7 of the law of the missing child shall be “any person shall be a missing child without good cause.”