The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the legislative purpose and amendment history of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse"), characteristics of representations, etc., the term "reliable representations that can be perceived as children or juveniles" under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Act refers to expressions that can be clearly perceived as juveniles objectively from the perspective of the average person. In individual cases, the determination should be made with caution by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the description of the appearance and physical appearance of a person expressing the expression in person and physical appearance, voice or voice, appearance, situation setting, background or distance of video works, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do863 Decided May 30, 2019, etc.). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds that the instant cartoon videos constitute child and juvenile pornography under the former Act, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following: (b) the appearing persons of the cartoon videos posted by the Defendant on the Internet file sharing website are the students in whose classical uniforms or strings were replaced by the students who were in appearance aged below 19 years; (c) the overall reduced distance is the content of sexual intercourse or similar sexual intercourse with a baby or a baby, etc. at a school or a private teaching institute; and (d) the surrounding background appears to be the library, playground, object, class, etc.; and (c) on the ground that the instant cartoon videos videos constitute child and juvenile pornography under the former Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on child and juvenile pornography, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

However, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment that notified the Defendant that he/she should submit personal information, but was amended by Act No. 14412, Dec. 20, 2016.