The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Distribution of obscenity), but determined that the Defendants cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of care necessary to prevent distribution and distribution of obscenity in the course of operating the file sharing program “H” through the F site (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. In fact, the Defendants, through the instant website, fulfilled their duty to act necessary to prevent the spread of obscene materials while operating the file sharing program, and did not intend to assist the I’s dissemination of obscene materials, but the lower court convicted the Defendants of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the facts and finding them guilty.

(c)

In the event that the court below's punishment was applied as an aiding and abetting offender, it is unfair that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, because there was an error of law that sentenced the maximum statutory penalty before mitigation to the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles (1) is that aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the principal offender’s implementation, and thus, constitutes not only a commission but also a commission. In a case where a person, who is legally obligated to act to prevent infringement of legally protected interests as prohibited under the Criminal Act, performs his/her duty to act by easily preventing the occurrence of the result, despite the fact that he/she could have prevented the occurrence of the result by performing his/her duty, and fails to perform his/her duty, the omission is equivalent to the infringement of legally protected interests by the commission, and thus, can be punished as a crime of omission in the same manner as the commission by the commission was committed, and in this context, the duty to act is not only due to statutes, legal acts, preceding acts, and other principles or principles of good faith.