정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(음란물유포)방조
The first judgment of the court of first instance reversed all the parts against the Defendants and the second judgment of the court of first instance.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 2011No1819 case: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the Defendant made the best efforts to prevent the spread of obscene materials, including the prior and subsequent technical measures available at the time of operating the P2P site around 2007, and thus, Defendant H did not have the intention to assist him at the time).
2013No625 case: mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles [1] With respect to aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as “obscenity”), the Defendants followed all the standards for the duty of aiding and abetting by taking the best possible measures at the level of technology at the time of 2009 in order to prevent the dissemination of obscene materials in operating the web website, and thereby complying with all the standards for the duty of aiding and abetting, which are the basis for the responsibility of aiding and abetting. This part of the criminal facts are related to the crime of 2011No1819 case and are related to the crime of the second instance indictment (attached Form 1 is also illegal as the
② As to aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, there is not sufficient evidence to readily conclude that the above videos are obscene materials actually appearing by juveniles. Even if assumed as “obscenity materials for juveniles’ use,” Defendant H did not know such circumstances at all, nor aided and abetting the distribution of juvenile pornography for profit-making purposes, and the modification of indictment regarding Nos. 2 and 3 in the attached list 2 of the crime list 2 should be dismissed as it is unlawful.
③ As to aiding and abetting a violation of the Copyright Act, Defendant H not only did not have the intent of aiding and abetting but also cannot be recognized as habituality, and thus, Defendant H should be dismissed unless there is a complaint filed by the holder of author’s property right.
(4) As to aiding and abetting violations of the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act, whether Defendant H is a video product classified as a rating.