All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In order to establish a crime of aiding and abetting Defendants A, B, and C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.”) and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the occurrence of the principal offender’s results, and simply recognizing the possibility of the principal offender’s occurrence cannot be established as a crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the mere recognition of the possibility of posting obscene materials. However, Defendant A, B, and Defendant Company paid attention to the level exceeding the level required by the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials), and each video recorded in the facts charged by Defendant G (hereinafter “Defendant A, G, and Defendant Company”) as stated in the facts charged by Defendant G (hereinafter “each of the instant cartoon videos”).

(B) The cartoon screen is a cartoon screen. The cartoon screen does not constitute “child or juvenile pornography” as provided by Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and since a person appearing in each cartoon screen of this case does not constitute a child or juvenile, the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, Distribution, etc. of obscenity) and the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting such given given that Defendant G merely posted the cartoon screen of this case and its introduction and insertion which were downloaded in another place and did not know that each of the above pictures was a child or juvenile pornography, and Defendant A and Defendant Company knew that Defendant G posted each of the cartoon screen of this case, or that each of the above video constitutes a child or juvenile pornography.