beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty as to the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., purchase of sex), and each violation of the Child Welfare Act (i.e., coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc. against children) listed in the aforementioned sequence of sequence A among the facts charged in the instant case, and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the remaining facts charged by the Defendants.
The Defendants appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the court below. Therefore, the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below was separated and finalized and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since there was no fact that Defendant A had the victim conduct sexual traffic with Defendant B, Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to commit the instant sexual traffic, and thus, it should not be deemed that Defendant A committed sexual abuse against the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the remainder of the facts charged with the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (sexual purchase, etc.) and the violation of the Child Welfare Act (voluntary coercion, intermediary, sexual harassment, etc.) except the No. 11 and 12 of the crime list. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A is too unreasonable.
3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order Defendant A to put an employment restriction for three years. B) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse), Defendant B reversed confession made in the lower court on the grounds of appeal, but on the second day of the trial of the