The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the prosecutor did not make a statement about the door and the bale in the police that the F, a child or juvenile, did not make a statement about the body of the Defendant B, but did not make a statement about the door and the bale. The prosecutor stated that the Defendant B was the sexual purchaser, and even at the time of the lower court’s trial, Defendant B’s photograph as the resident registration card was accurately made with Defendant B.

In addition, Defendant B, around December 24, 2012, arranged for F to engage in F's sexual traffic, and the fact that Defendant B, around January 21, 2013, engaged in K and three calls and one-time letters, which are another intermediary, and around January 21, 2013, supported F's above statement.

In light of the above F’s statement and Defendant B’s above currency contents, etc., the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged of this case on the ground that Defendant B paid sexual traffic to F and had a sexual intercourse with him, as stated in the facts charged of this case, although it was sufficiently recognized that Defendant B had a sexual intercourse with him.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant B, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) from December 24, 2012 to January 21, 2013, Defendant B paid 130,000 won to Defendant B, a juvenile, who met in the vicinity of the JJ located in Ulsannam-gu, U.S., to “her 16 years old” as the payment for sexual traffic, and had sexual intercourse with Defendant B. Accordingly, the lower court determined by the lower court, in light of the fact that Defendant B identified Defendant B as the other party to sexual traffic at the investigative agency, and Defendant B made a gold son in conformity with F’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, and that there was a door on his chest and Defendant B’s telephone call, etc., Defendant B actually committed a sexual intercourse with Defendant B.