The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( possession of obscene materials), the lower court determined that all of the video files in [Attachment 1] and 828 video files in the lower judgment as obscene materials for children’s use.

In this regard, the obscene materials used by juveniles should be objectively perceived from the perspective of the average person, and should be clearly perceived as children and juveniles. Among the above videos, some of the video files are images of those who are obviously perceived as children and juveniles, and it is unclear whether they are children or juveniles or not.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that all of the above video files were made as child pornography.

[In relation to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Possession of obscene materials), the prosecutor changed the indictment by withdrawing the prosecution against 43 video files on two occasions as seen in the following 2.2.

Accordingly, 785 (28 - 43) among the 785 files attached to the court below's attached list (28 - 43) of the court below's attached list of crimes. The defendant and his defense counsel are 176 files attached to the court below's 176 crime list (1) 70 through 77, 127 through 130, 151, 228, 229, 230, 234, 238, 310 through 313, 341, 383, 384, 385, 526 through 54, 567 through 667, 672, 674, 681 through 684, 735, 7777, etc. among the changed 785 files.

The file asserts that it is unclear whether it is a child or juvenile pornography.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel at the court below's attached crime sight table (1) contains images that cannot be seen as obscene in the previous file.

However, the prosecutor has withdrawn the public prosecution against the files that cannot be seen as obscene materials as pointed out by the defendant and his defense counsel in the trial of the party, so this part of the argument is based on the appeal.