beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendant, not guilty, publicly notified the summary of the judgment of this case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of the crime of this case’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have been at the place of sexual traffic operated by himself, but had been at another place, and therefore, the Defendant did not arrange for sexual traffic to E, and at the time, the Defendant did not at all engage in the business and did not have sexual intercourse with the male, and although the Defendant did not recognize that he was a juvenile, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges by misunderstanding of facts.
B. Even if the Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic is acknowledged, the instant business was conducted on a single day, and the Defendant did not repeatedly engage in an objective and considerable number of times, such as having no telephone to E after August 20, 2012, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was “the business” to arrange the purchase of sex from a child or juvenile, and that the Defendant committed an error of misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 12(1)2 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
2. In order to maintain the previous facts charged in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the prosecutor shall, in his/her discretion, keep the facts charged, and in his/her ancillaryly, “violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc." in the name of the crime, “Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., and Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable provisions of Acts, and the following
In addition, each of the ancillary charges stated in paragraph (1) filed an application for permission to modify the indictment (as the prosecutor added the ancillary charges in the trial, the initial charges were the primary charges) and this court permitted the application.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial.
However, the judgment of the court below is above.