All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. “Apparent representations that can be clearly perceived as a child or juvenile” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”) refer to expressions that can be objectively perceived as a juvenile from the perspective of the average person. Determination should be made after careful consideration of various circumstances, such as the description of the appearance and physical condition of a person, voice or horse, uniform, situation setting, and background or reduced distance of video works, in individual cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do863 Decided May 30, 2019). B.

The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Exploitation (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) on the ground that the cartoon videos posted by the Defendants on each web site constituted child and juvenile pornography as defined in the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Exploitation, in full view of various circumstances, including the following: (a) the appearing figures of cartoon videos posted by the Defendants on each web site appear to be less than 19 years of age in appearance as students; and (b) the overall reduced distance is a content of sexual intercourse with a baby, a dynamic, or a similar sexual intercourse with a baby, etc. at a school or a private teaching institute.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on child and juvenile pornography, etc. as stated in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the distribution of siren files, the appeal court is ex post facto review of the judgment of the appellate court, so matters not subject to the judgment of the appellate court are not subject to the scope of the judgment of the appellate court.