The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

For a period of five years, the information about the defendant.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. On November 1, 2016, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (distribution, etc. of production of obscene materials) and the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse), and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment, five years of an order of disclosure notification, and 80 hours of order to complete the program.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed each on the grounds of the failure of trial, mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. On February 9, 2017, the trial before remanded the judgment dismissing all appeals filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor by rejecting the Defendant’s and the Prosecutor’s argument that the Defendant’s mistake of facts, etc. and the Prosecutor’s misjudgments, and the Prosecutor’s misjudgments of facts and misapprehensions of legal principles.

In this regard, the defendant and the prosecutor respectively made their decisions on the grounds of the failure of each hearing and the misunderstanding of legal principles.

(c)

The Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s appeal on June 15, 2017 on the grounds that the judgment prior to the remanding of the instant facts charged (excluding the part without charge) was justifiable. However, there is sufficient room to regard Defendant’s act as not only “act of having a child engage in sexual harassment, etc. against a child” but also “act of sexual abuse.” In addition, it is difficult to conclude it as such even if it is difficult for the prosecutor to conclude it.

Even before remanding, considering the written opinion and the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court ordered the prosecutor to clarify the litigation relationship in accordance with Article 141 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, such as seeking an explanation on the purport that this part of the facts charged constitutes “sexual harassment, etc. that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation to children,” and on the relation with “the act of causing a child to feel obscene.”