The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) defines “child and juvenile pornography” as “those under the age of 19 years: Provided, That any person against whom January 1 of the year in which he/she reaches the age of 19 arrives shall be excluded;” and Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the same Act defines “child and juvenile pornography” as “an act falling under any of subparagraph 4 due to the appearance of any person or representations who may be perceived as a child or juvenile, or any other sexual act, in the form of a film, video, game software, or video image, etc. through computer or other communications media, and defines “a person who distributes, openly displays, displays, or openly displays, displays, or openly displays, etc. child and juvenile pornography” as “a person who is punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.”

① In order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal authority, penal laws should be strictly interpreted, and the interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the explicit penal laws in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not allowed to be contrary to the principle of no crime without the law. ② The phrase “persons or representations that can be perceived as children or juveniles” in the definition of child or juvenile pornography under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former ASEAN Act is somewhat ambiguous, and the scope of punishment is likely to be excessively widened, and the meaning of punishment is likely to be too broad, in addition to the phrase “clearly perceived as children or juveniles” in the amendment of the former ASEAN Act by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012 to clarify its meaning.