logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.05.30 2015도863
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(음란물유포)방조등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) and assistance thereto

A. (1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 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") provides that "Child and juvenile pornography refers to a person under the age of 19 years: Provided, That any person against whom January 1 of the year in which he/she reaches the age of 19 arrives shall be excluded herefrom; and Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that "Child and juvenile pornography refers to a person in the form of film, video, game software, or video image, etc. through a computer or other communications medium, in which child and juvenile pornography appeared to express any act falling under any of subparagraph 4 or any other sexual act."

Unlike the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11047, Sept. 15, 201), Article 2 Subparag. 5, supra, included not only cases where children or juveniles appear but also cases where “persons or representations that can be perceived as children or juveniles” appeared in the child or juvenile pornography.

The reason is to protect children from potential sexual crimes in consideration of the fact that viewing of various media products describing that children or juveniles engage in sexual acts, regardless of whether children or juveniles actually appeared, may cause sexual offenses against children or juveniles.

( Constitutional Court Order 2013Hun-Ga17, 24, 2013Hun-Ba85 Decided June 25, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2013Hun-Ga17, 24, 2013Hun-Ba85). After that, as the former Act was amended by Act No. 11572 on December 18, 2012, Article 2 Subparag. 5 added the phrase “clearly” as “persons or representations that can be clearly perceived as children or juveniles.

(ii).

arrow