The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Relevant legal principles

A. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was enacted on February 3, 2000 on the legislative background of the penal provision for the production of obscene materials for children and juveniles, provides that the definition of juveniles shall be defined as male and female under the age of 19, and Article 8(1) of the same Act provides that a person who produces, imports, or exports obscene materials for juveniles shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years.

The former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse was amended on June 9, 2009 to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”). Article 11(1) of the former Act amended on December 18, 2012, the penal provision of Article 8(1) of the former Act was maintained. However, the statutory punishment was raised by imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years (after the instant case, by changing the “child and juvenile pornography” to the “child and juvenile exploitation,” thereby making the “child and juvenile pornography 1” to the “child and juvenile exploitation,” and making the “child and juvenile pornography 200” to the “child and juvenile pornography 1, 200, and 1,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 1,000, 3,000.