The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts (defendants 1 through 3) cannot be readily concluded that the victims appearing in the instant obscene materials are children or juveniles, and since the video itself alone cannot be seen as a child or juvenile pornography, the instant obscene materials do not constitute a child or juvenile pornography. Nevertheless, the lower court which found Defendant 1 guilty of the instant facts charged (the first instance judgment) erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment) sentenced by the lower court (the first instance judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (i.e., double-g., the Defendant’s jugal juthy (SM-N90L, No. 2 of the seizure list No. 2; hereinafter “instant smartphone”), which was seized by the Defendant, omitted it even though it should be confiscated, and the punishment that the lower court sentenced is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes refers to the expression of “child or juvenile pornography” or “persons or representations that may be clearly perceived as a child or juvenile,” and the expression of any act falling under any of subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse or other sexual acts in the form of film, video, game software, or video image, etc. through computers or other communications media (Article 2 subparag. 5) (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse). In light of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to deem that the instant obscene material is a juvenile, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant obscene material is a child or juvenile pornography.