Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Planning or directing the filming of child pornography in principle counts as its production
Supreme Court, Sept. 13, 2018, 2018Do9340 (judgment)
Case name: 아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(음란물제작·배포등)[일부인정된죄명:성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)]·강요미수
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does planning the making of child or adolescent pornography, having another person film it or giving concrete instructions during its making amount to the 'production' of such material under Article 11(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Sexual Abuse, even where the defendant did not film in front of the child or adolescent, and when is that production complete?
Holding
It does. Absent special circumstances, planning the making of such material, having another person film it or giving concrete instructions during its making is production, and the child or adolescent's consent or a primary purpose of private possession does not take the act outside Article 11(1). Production is complete when the filming is finished and the material is stored in a form that can be played, and the defendant need not himself be able to play it or hold it on his own device. The same applies where the defendant made the child or adolescent film themselves as the subject.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고인이 직접 아동·청소년의 면전에서 촬영행위를 하지 않았더라도 아동·청소년이용음란물을 만드는 것을 기획하고 타인으로 하여금 촬영행위를 하게 하거나 만드는 과정에서 구체적인 지시를 하였다면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 아동·청소년이용음란물 ‘제작’에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where the defendant did not directly engage in the act of filming in the presence of the children and juveniles, if the defendant planned to make pornographic materials using children and juveniles and caused another person to engage in the act of filming, or gave specific instructions in the course of making them, then, absent special circumstances, such conduct constitutes the ‘production’ of pornographic materials using children and juveniles.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그러므로 아동·청소년의 동의가 있다거나 개인적인 소지·보관을 1차적 목적으로 제작하더라도 청소년성보호법 제11조 제1항의 ‘아동·청소년이용음란물의 제작’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, even where the children and juveniles have consented or where the materials are produced for the primary purpose of personal possession or storage, the conduct must be regarded as the ‘production of pornographic materials using children and juveniles’ under Article 11 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.
Factors
- 아동·청소년의 동의가 있다거나 개인적인 소지·보관을 1차적 목적으로 제작하더라도
- 아동·청소년이용음란물을 만드는 것을 기획하고 타인으로 하여금 촬영행위를 하게 하거나 만드는 과정에서 구체적인 지시를 하였다면
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 이러한 촬영을 마쳐 재생이 가능한 형태로 저장이 된 때에 제작은 기수에 이르고
- 이러한 법리는 피고인이 아동·청소년으로 하여금 스스로 자신을 대상으로 하는 음란물을 촬영하게 한 경우에도 마찬가지이다
Unofficial English translation
• Even where the children and juveniles have consented or where the materials are produced for the primary purpose of personal possession or storage,
• if the defendant planned to make pornographic materials using children and juveniles and caused another person to engage in the act of filming, or gave specific instructions in the course of making them,
• absent special circumstances,
• the production is consummated at the time when such filming is completed and the material is stored in a form capable of being played back, and
• the same legal principle applies even where the defendant caused children and juveniles to film pornographic materials of themselves.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2014도11501, 2014전도197 판결(공2015상, 505)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11501, 2014Jeon-Do197 decided February 12, 2015 (Gong 2015 Sang, 505)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2014도11501, 2014전도197 판결(공2015상, 505)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances are special enough to take a plan or a concrete instruction for making such material outside the 'production' covered by Article 11(1)?
A later decision construing 'absent special circumstances' or fixing the moment of completion on different storage facts would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 11(1) or to the definitions of child or adolescent pornography in Article 2(iv) and (v) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Sexual Abuse.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 24 May 2018 (2017No756), found that the defendant told the victim over KakaoTalk that he would pay money, directed the victim to film masturbation and other obscene acts with the camera attached to the victim's own smartphone, and that the victim did so. It held that production was complete the moment the resulting video information was entered into the main memory of the victim's smartphone, and rejected the defendant's appellate argument that he had only received the file and had neither stored nor distributed it.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the legal principle set out above and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not misread Article 11(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Sexual Abuse on the production of child or adolescent pornography, or the principle of clarity under the principle of legality in crime. On the separate count of indecency through telecommunications media under the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, it likewise found no breach of the rules of evidence or of the limits of free evaluation, and dismissed the appeal unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the defendant neither planned the making nor gave concrete instructions, but only received a file that another had already made, as the defendant here argued.
- A case in which the filming was not finished, or the resulting material was not stored in a form that can be played, so that production had not reached completion.
- A case in which the material is not child or adolescent pornography within Article 2(v) of the Act, because no child or adolescent or clearly recognisable representation appears, or the content expresses no act listed in Article 2(iv).
Record verification notes
Set the file against the three ways the Court described production: planning, having another person film, and concrete instructions during the making, and note whether any special circumstances are put forward, since the rule applies only in their absence. Then fix the date and method of storage in a playable form, because that is when production is complete, and confirm that the material itself satisfies Article 2(iv) and (v) of the Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
아동·청소년을 이용한 음란물 제작을 처벌하는 이유 및 아동·청소년의 동의가 있다거나 개인적인 소지·보관을 1차적 목적으로 제작하더라도 아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제11조 제1항의 ‘아동·청소년이용음란물의 제작’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) / 직접 아동·청소년의 면전에서 촬영행위를 하지 않았더라도 아동·청소년이용음란물을 만드는 것을 기획하고 타인으로 하여금 촬영행위를 하게 하거나 만드는 과정에서 구체적인 지시를 한 경우, 아동·청소년이용음란물 ‘제작’에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)와 그 기수 시기(=촬영을 마쳐 재생이 가능한 형태로 저장된 때) 및 이러한 법리는 아동·청소년으로 하여금 스스로 자신을 대상으로 하는 음란물을 촬영하게 한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The reasons for punishing the production of pornographic materials using children and juveniles, and whether such conduct constitutes the ‘production of pornographic materials using children and juveniles’ under Article 11 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, even where the children and juveniles have consented or where the materials are produced for the primary purpose of personal possession or storage (affirmative) / Even where the defendant did not directly engage in the act of filming in the presence of the children and juveniles, whether planning to make pornographic materials using children and juveniles and causing another person to engage in the act of filming, or giving specific instructions in the course of making them, constitutes the ‘production’ of pornographic materials using children and juveniles (in principle, affirmative), and the time of its consummation (= the time when the filming is completed and the material is stored in a form capable of being played back), and whether the same legal principle applies even where the defendant caused children and juveniles to film pornographic materials of themselves (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률(이하 ‘청소년성보호법’이라 한다)의 입법목적은 아동·청소년을 대상으로 성적 행위를 한 자를 엄중하게 처벌함으로써 성적 학대나 착취로부터 아동·청소년을 보호하고 아동·청소년이 책임 있고 건강한 사회구성원으로 성장할 수 있도록 하려는 데 있다. 아동·청소년이용음란물은 직접 피해자인 아동·청소년에게는 치유하기 어려운 정신적 상처를 안겨줄 뿐만 아니라, 이를 시청하는 사람들에게까지 성에 대한 왜곡된 인식과 비정상적 가치관을 조장한다. 따라서 아동·청소년을 이용한 음란물 ‘제작’을 원천적으로 봉쇄하여 아동·청소년을 성적 대상으로 보는 데서 비롯되는 잠재적 성범죄로부터 아동·청소년을 보호할 필요가 있다. 특히 인터넷 등 정보통신매체의 발달로 음란물이 일단 제작되면 제작 후 제작자의 의도와 관계없이 언제라도 무분별하고 무차별적으로 유통에 제공될 가능성이 있다. 이러한 점에 아동·청소년을 이용한 음란물 제작을 처벌하는 이유가 있다. 그러므로 아동·청소년의 동의가 있다거나 개인적인 소지·보관을 1차적 목적으로 제작하더라도 청소년성보호법 제11조 제1항의 ‘아동·청소년이용음란물의 제작’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 피고인이 직접 아동·청소년의 면전에서 촬영행위를 하지 않았더라도 아동·청소년이용음란물을 만드는 것을 기획하고 타인으로 하여금 촬영행위를 하게 하거나 만드는 과정에서 구체적인 지시를 하였다면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 아동·청소년이용음란물 ‘제작’에 해당한다. 이러한 촬영을 마쳐 재생이 가능한 형태로 저장이 된 때에 제작은 기수에 이르고 반드시 피고인이 그와 같이 제작된 아동·청소년이용음란물을 재생하거나 피고인의 기기로 재생할 수 있는 상태에 이르러야만 하는 것은 아니다. 이러한 법리는 피고인이 아동·청소년으로 하여금 스스로 자신을 대상으로 하는 음란물을 촬영하게 한 경우에도 마찬가지이다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
아동·청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률 제2조 제4호, 제5호, 제11조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger