The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) as to the charges of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. (sexual traffic) around June 2014 against D, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the Defendant’s confession and other reinforcement of the charges. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules

(Unlawful Sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds of its stated reasoning, deemed that there is no content that corresponds to the above facts charged, and thus, disadvantageous evidence against the Defendant is unfavorable.

In light of relevant evidence, pleading, and legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, etc.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor submitted an investigation report accompanied by a field photograph, etc. of the defendant's sexual relation with D, but the reinforcement evidence is a evidence that reinforces the probative value of confession, so it should be separate evidence independent of confession. The above investigation report is merely a confession made by the defendant through re-making the scene of the crime or classifying the scene of the crime, and it cannot be a evidence of reinforcement.

On the other hand, the defendant used the theft crime.

If a white tool, etc. appeared in a field photograph, the photograph is not a mere reproduction of crime, but it may be an independent evidence of reinforcement independent from the confession (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do8015, Sept. 29, 201). However, the above site photograph is a restaurant within and outside the passenger car designated by the defendant as the place of sexual purchase, and its nearby area.