The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (De facto M) only received text messages from H, a child or juvenile, on several occasions, and there was no fact that Defendant A paid money in return for the purchase of sex around February 18, 2012 and around February 20, 2012, on the same date as indicated in the instant facts charged, around February 18, 2012, and around February 20, 2012, and there was no fact that Defendant A met the above H on each of the above dates.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts about Defendant A and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant C (Definite) was at the same time as indicated in the instant facts charged and returned immediately to K, which is a child or juvenile, in the vicinity of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentJ, and there was no fact that Defendant C paid money in return for the purchase of sex and had sexual intercourse with the said K.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts about Defendant C and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the judgment of the court below (1) of the facts charged: (a) around 17:50 on February 18, 2012, Defendant A made sexual purchases, such as “A.” around 150,000 won in return for sexual purchase, and sexual intercourses, with the aim of fulfilling one another through Internet hosting on the Internet within the Gel located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentF. B. Defendant A made sexual purchases at around 23:50 on February 20, 2012, at the above place, at around 150,00 won and 1.50,000 won and sexual intercourses, etc. with the above purpose as seen earlier, the court below stated the above H as not only the person whose pictures were deemed to have been fulfilled by Defendant A, but also the person whose sexual traffic was stated on February 18, 2012 and as stated on February 20 and 20, 2012.