2019Do10479 A. Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production of obscene materials);

(Distribution, etc.) Aid

(b) Information and Communications Network Promotion Act;

half. (Helping and abetting obscenity)

(c) Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (obscenity);

Provision of Personal Services

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Lee Dong-hwan, and Jeong-sung

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019No366 Decided July 9, 2019

October 18, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower judgment did not reduce self-regulation, the lower court’s arbitrary reduction or exemption of punishment is not illegal even in cases where the number of self-regulation is recognized, and the lower court did not take a voluntary reduction of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4883, Sept. 22, 2006). Accordingly, this constitutes an assertion of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, and thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed, the Defendant’s appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is rendered, and thus, the allegation that the

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court reversed the portion of the first instance judgment concerning additional collection and did not sentence the Defendant additional collection. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo