The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant and the attachment order shall be reversed.

Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order, the requester for an attachment order, and the requester for an order to observe the protective order (i.e., mistake of the facts) committed a violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (i.e., deceptive scheme) against the victim C against the victim C, and the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order, and the respondent for an order to observe the protective order (hereinafter the Defendant) committed sexual intercourse only with the victim C under the agreement with the victim C and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by force. The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the victim C’s statement, etc.

B) Article 5-2(2)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against F, G, L, and N applies to a person who committed the crime of kidnapping against a minor under the age of 13 among “a person who committed the crime of kidnapping to a minor” as amended on January 6, 2016. The subject of the former Act is limited to “a person who committed the crime of kidnapping to a minor under the age of 13,” which falls under the case where a person who committed the crime of kidnaping was excessively punished, and thus, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act is applied.

Therefore, since F, G, L, and N are minors over 13 years of age, the defendant should not be punished by applying the preceding provision.

Even if the provisions prior to the amendment of the Shebrogate are applied, ① the defendant has sexual intercourses under the agreement with F, G, and L, and the defendant has been employed at entertainment establishments by himself, and the defendant has not committed cruel acts, ② AK has induced N to China, and the defendant has sexual intercourses under the agreement with N, and there was no suspicion that the defendant has induced N to China, and there was no suspicion against N.

Secondly, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statements of F, G, L, and N without credibility. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

C) The victim who attempted the hostage robbery against the victim N.