logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.06.30 2014노591
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작ㆍ배포등)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal states that the Defendant himself stated that “the method of using a siren program was searched to receive the file of this case by installing a siren program,” and that the Defendant was well aware of the structure of a siren, which is a file sharing program operated simultaneously with the download, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant not guilty of the Defendant’s criminal intent. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. A. Around June 8, 2013, around 10:34, the summary of the facts charged is that, at the Defendant’s residence located in Manyang-si C and 102(D), the Defendant openly displayed child and juvenile pornography by making it available on the Internet to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, and by linking it to the adult data room (htp:/www/www.com) with the Defendant’s title, “[Korean Nowon] E.vi.” on the bulletin board of the adult data room, one video file in which the juvenile’s self-defense act, etc. was expressed. from June 8, 2013 to June 2013, 2013.

B. The judgment of the court below held that the defendant downloaded the file of "(Korea Nowon] E.avi by using the "tourt", the file sharing program at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and the fact that the above file was downloaded and stored as the co-owned part of the above program, and the above file in the co-owned part and shared with others is recognized, but in the case of the above program, it is recognized that the file downloaded was created in a way that the files stored in the co-owned part and the files in the co-owned part are run again again in the co-owned part, and as long as the creation is not changed, the files downloadd automatically are operated without changing its establishment. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant had been well aware of the structure of the above program, and the defendant was a single unit through the above program.

arrow