A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the front of the D Hospital in Gwangju, the Defendant: (b) decided to engage in sexual traffic with the “E”, a juvenile F (n, 13 years of age) who became aware of through the “E”, which is a smartphone-type rink; (c) parked the Defendant’s Gice-type vehicle in the vicinity of the mutual influorial station in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (d) paid 50,000 won to F in return for sexual traffic at that place; and (e) engaged in sexual intercourse to purchase child and juvenile sex.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Notification and reply with respect to persons complying with the DNA;

1. Application of statutes, such as certificates of school attendance;

1. Article 13 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse against the relevant criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 21(2) main sentence of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse

1. The gist of the assertion was that F was a child or youth.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant was fully aware of, or was aware of, the fact that the Defendant was a child or juvenile under the age of 19 years, at least did not do so.

The decision is judged.

① At the time of committing the instant crime, F’s actual age was over 13 years and 11 months, and had a mature appearance compared to F’s age in a photograph.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

② Although the Defendant confirmed that the F was 20 years of age on the top of hosting, the Defendant asked the F and the F to be her age again within the next year (the Defendant, on April 2012, was fit for purchasing sex against the juveniles of 14 years of age, and the Defendant’s re-verification of the F’s age seems to be related thereto). This is the Defendant’s F.