However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who operates the Internet site (C, D) in the name of “B”.

No one shall distribute, sell, rent, or openly display obscene codes, letters, sound, images, or motion pictures through an information and communications network.

Nevertheless, around November 17, 2018, the Defendant posted a cartoon of “G”, which was exposed to a woman’s chest, sound, etc., on the said website at the Defendant’s residence located in Gyeonggi-si EF, Gyeonggi-do, and the foregoing website. From March 21, 2017 to the above date, the Defendant posted a total of 1,197 obscene video as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the Defendant displayed obscene images openly through information and communications networks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The details of H capital withdrawals, and accumulation of profits from the ships;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to documentary evidence of general obscene materials, and documentary evidence of child pornography;

1. Article 74(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Specific Crimes and Articles 74-7(1)1 and 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (generally, the legal benefits from damage are uniform, and the act of display is repeated in the same manner with the same criminal intent for a single and continuous period following the single and continuous criminal intent, and thus constitutes a single comprehensive crime. A prosecutor is indicted as concurrent crimes, but the court recognizes the criminal facts alleged in the criminal facts charged as a substantive concurrent crime even though he/she was punished as a single comprehensive crime with a different legal evaluation on the number of crimes, as it does not affect the defense of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987).

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Promotion of the use of information and communications networks;