1. As to the identity of the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the basic factual basis of the facts charged cannot be deemed identical to that of the instant facts charged and the summary order (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013 High Court Decision 20

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of facts charged and res judicata as stated in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to child and juvenile pornography

A. “Apparent materials that can be perceived as a child or juvenile” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) refer to expressive materials that can be clearly perceived as a juvenile from an average perspective of society, objectively perceived as a juvenile. In individual cases, determination should be made after careful consideration of various circumstances, such as the description of the appearance and physical appearance of a person in which expressive materials are expressed, voice or horses, clothes, conditions setting, and background or distance of video works.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do863 Decided May 30, 2019). B.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the cartoon video of this case constitutes child and juvenile pornography under the former Juvenile Protection Act (production, distribution, etc. of pornography) on the ground that the cartoon video of this case constitutes a child and juvenile pornography under the former Juvenile Protection Act, in view of the fact that the cartoon video of this case constitutes a child and juvenile pornography as defined in the latter Juvenile Protection Act, in view of the fact that the cartoon video of this case is displayed by installing a arbial container directly on the screen of the computer screen operated by the defendant.

The judgment below

The reasoning is based on the foregoing legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted.