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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict, and the interpretation of the explicit penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted in light of the principle of no punishment without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7725, Aug. 25, 2011). Meanwhile, the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Juvenile Act”) provides for special cases concerning punishment and procedures for sex offenses against children and juveniles, and provides relief and support procedures for victimized children and juveniles, and systematically manages sex offenders against children and juveniles so that they can be protected from sex offenses and grow up as healthy members of society, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act provides for “any person who publicly exhibits or uses children and juveniles with obscene or video products or with obscene contents defined in Article 2 subparag. 25, 200,” and provides for “any person who acts against children and juveniles against whom they reach the age of 19 years or age.”

In light of the legal principles on the interpretation of penal provisions as seen earlier, Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the ASEAN provides for the relevant provisions and legislative intent of the ASEAN.