The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that M was a juvenile under the age of 19 under Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse at the time of employing M and mediating sexual traffic.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, and 20 hours of confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: (i) M was a juvenile of 18 years of age at the time of the crime in this case; (ii) M was a minor at the police, who was investigated twice at the police; and (iii) it was clearly stated that, at the time of the interview between the defendant and the defendant, the defendant had a personal identification card and a student identification card; (iv) M did not show a student identification card to the defendant; (v) was reversed the above police statement, but it was difficult to view that M did not have made a false statement during the police investigation; and (v) M was a minor with a special hostile appraisal for the defendant; and (v) M was a minor at the time of interview with the defendant, and only 170,000 won of the interview with the defendant at the time of the interview with the defendant, and only 180,000 won of the interview with the defendant at the time of the interview with the police.

(Evidence Records Nos. 71, 144 pages). M has shown in the trial that the defendant had shown his resident registration certificate in 1993 and had shown his resident registration certificate in 192, a school ship owner.