2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case may not possess a child or juvenile pornography knowing that it is a child or juvenile pornography.

On May 17, 2012, the Defendant visited the “B” site at the French site, received a download of video images, which are the contents of a juvenile’s sexual act, due to the appearance of “C” and “D”, and possessed them by storing them in the external hard disks owned by the Defendant until March 15, 2018.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the female appearing in each of the instant videos constitutes a child or juvenile, or a person clearly recognizable as a child or juvenile, under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and that each of the instant videos constitutes a child or juvenile pornography, and that it cannot be deemed that there was no reasonable doubt to view that there was no reasonable doubt as to whether each of the instant videos constitutes a child or juvenile pornography.

① The file name of each of the instant videos is indicated as “E” and may be suspected as having been contributed by children and juveniles.

However, there is no information on the identity such as the source of video, the production process, and the age of the person appearing, and all women who contributed on the F site suspected of being the source of the video are indicated as 18 years of age or older.

② Women appearing in each video of the instant case are somewhat likely to appear.

However, the age is limited to the appearance of the person, such as the appearance and physical condition of the person.