아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작ㆍ배포등)등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) Each sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, three years of suspended sentence, 240 hours of community service order, 215, 977, 255 won, and 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service order, additional dues 110, 966, 345 won) of the lower court’s decision on unfair sentencing is unreasonable. 2) The advertising fees that the Defendants received from the advertiser in return for posting an advertisement on the obscene material website and web site are not money paid by the website users for downloading obscene materials or web file, and it is difficult to view it as subject to additional collection.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court’s determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine (the production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) is deemed as follows: (a) video posted by the Defendants on the D website around September 6, 2018 (hereinafter “instant video”).
(2) Although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The above punishment of the court below on the unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. It is reasonable to view that the advertising fees that the Defendants acquired by operating the obscene material website and the web site are not merely advertising fees but also advertising fees for securing users of criminal conduct.
Therefore, the advertising fees that the Defendant acquired by operating the obscene material site and the web site constitutes criminal proceeds with the property acquired as a direct consideration for the operation of the above site itself.
Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principle.