The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Process of Litigation

A. On March 2014, the Defendant was indicted as a 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.”) on the act of a male and female juvenile’s display of child or juvenile pornography on the Internet web site D (hereinafter “obscenity”). As to the act of making a total of 22 obscene videos in D as shown in the attached list of crimes, as to the act of making a business of making a total of 22 obscene videos in D, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

B. In the lower judgment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) to add “violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Distribution of obscenity)” to the charges of “violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Distribution of obscenity)” and “Article 74(1)2 and Article 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.

C. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the primary facts charged that male and female juveniles engaged in business with obscene materials for children and juveniles appearing and distributed obscene materials for children and juveniles, and convicted them of the ancillary facts charged and the facts charged as to the portion indicated in the attached list of crimes. D.

The prosecutor appealed on the acquittal portion of the lower judgment on the ground of erroneous determination of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, but the appellate court prior to remand dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal.

E. The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the party before remand. The Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the primary charges of the judgment of the party prior to remand, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, cannot be maintained as it is, and the same body is identical to that part.