1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of its reasoning as follows: (a) violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) from among the primary facts charged in the instant case; (b) violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials); (c) violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from the Sale of Child and Juveniles obscenity (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials); (d) violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from the Exhibition of Child and Juveniles obscenity (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials); (e) violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from the Exhibition of Child and Juveniles obscenity (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials); and (e) the manufacture of obscene materials from among the primary facts charged in the instant case; and (e) the possession of obscene materials.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “child and juvenile pornography” and “commercialization” as prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 5

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the disposition and the part not guilty of the reasoning) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “child and juvenile pornography” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Juvenile Protection Act.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.