아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작ㆍ배포등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, the victim was aware of the violation of the Child Welfare Act at 16 years of age, and all sexual acts between the defendant and the victim were committed by the victim’s voluntary consent or active demand. Therefore, the victim cannot be deemed to have imprisoned with sexual humiliation, and thus, it cannot be deemed as sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, against a child prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.
In violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the victim agreed to photograph the scene of sexual conduct without forced force or determination of price. The defendant also appeared in the video of this case and participates in sexual conduct. Thus, the defendant's act of photographing the video of this case should be protected as much as possible in the private life. Since the defendant did not sell, rent, distribute, openly exhibit or show the video of this case at the time of photographing the video of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act was a production of the child or juvenile pornography prohibited by Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, it does not constitute the element of the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
Even if Defendant’s act constitutes an element of a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials), so long as the victim gave a genuine consent without forced force or a quid pro quo in relation to the shooting of the video of this case, it is equivalent to the case where the victim took photographs for himself/herself, and it is deemed the case where the victim, who is capable of decentralization, exercises his/her right to self-determination
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles 1.