The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles related to the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, Distribution, etc. of obscenity), the video files exhibited and distributed by the Defendant at the time and place specified in the charge No. 1, do not constitute a child or juvenile pornography since adult women have taken pictures of their sexual intercourse with their sexual intercourse, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination of misapprehension of the legal principles or misconception of the legal principles concerning crimes against the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production and distribution of obscene materials)

A. From August 26, 2012 to September 22, 2012, the Defendant shared 'Japol Sapol' and displayed and distributed to other members, a female student’s sexual intercourse at his/her English teaching school located in Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu, as a documentary file ( Qftile) website.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the video images as indicated in the judgment are contents of a sexual act by a person who was sent to a student as a student with his/her uniform and it constitutes “child or juvenile pornography” where “persons who can be perceived as a child or juvenile” appeared, and that even if the relevant person is an actual adult, it cannot be seen otherwise.

C. The above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

1. The interpretation of the relevant legal principles should be strict, and it is interpreted excessively or analogically in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.