The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant 1 did not recognize that the other party was a person under 19 years of age at the time of buying sex, the lower court determined that Defendant’s act constitutes a violation of Article 13(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of one year, protection observation, 80 hours community service order, and 40 hours community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal, prior to the judgment, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and the prosecutor applied the written indictment in this case as "violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the purchase, etc. of sex)," and applied the law as "Article 13(1) and Article 21(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse", respectively, and applied the law as "Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Brokerage, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts". Under the facts charged, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of changing the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged, as stated in the judgment below, and since this Court changed the same, this part of the judgment below cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the court below's judgment is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without any judgment as to the defendant's mistake and the prosecutor's wrongful sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, after oral argument.

[Grounds for the new judgment] The defendant who committed a crime is guilty of the crime, D apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu around June 8, 2017.