Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not guilty verdict as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that it is difficult to view the figures appearing in the instant videos as clearly perceived as children and juveniles on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of “child and juvenile pornography” under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012), or by exceeding

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.