A. Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that “persons or representations that may be perceived as juveniles” shall be construed to limit the cases where they can be perceived as juveniles actually exist, and that obscene cartoons in which a person appearing as a juvenile is sexually engaged shall not be deemed to be included in the child’s pornography.

B. The place where the Defendant appeared in G obscenity video images (hereinafter “the cartoon of this case”) that he opened for business is not a school but a school, and all characters appearing in the school appear to be an adult. Thus, the cartoon of this case is not a child’s obscene material but a general obscene material.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the materials used by juveniles under the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the cartoons of this case constitute obscene materials for the use of children, on the ground that they suffered clothes similar to school uniforms.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sept. 15, 2011) limited to the actual appearance of a child’s pornography, but upon the amendment of the foregoing provision on September 15, 201, the foregoing provision included the appearance “persons or representations that may be perceived as a juvenile”, and thereafter, the entire amendment by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012, limited to “persons or representations that may be clearly perceived as a juvenile”.

The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse does not stipulate any particular criteria for "reliable representations that can be clearly perceived as children."

However, the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.