The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that, based on the evidence adopted by the first instance court, the video images, which the Defendant allowed customers to view at the adult telephone room, constitute “child pornography” under the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012) or “child pornography” under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012) on the ground that it constitutes “child pornography” as provided by the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012).

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

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former ASEAN defines “child or juvenile pornography” as “those under the age of 19: Provided, That any person who distributes, openly displays or shows child or juvenile pornography shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won, in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act, by specifying “child or juvenile pornography” as “an expression of any act falling under any of subparagraph 4 or other sexual act due to the appearance of a child or juvenile, or any other sexual act, in the form of a film, video, game software, or a computer or other communications medium.”

① However, from the arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal rights.