The gist of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal of this case is that multiple rooms constitute a place where many unspecified persons can view, and thus, the so-called "defendant who screened obscene video tapes" of this case constitutes a place where many unspecified persons can view, as provided in Article 10 of the Sound Records Act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in maintaining the first instance court's measure that the defendant did not so so to many unspecified persons.

Pursuant to the latter part of Article 10 of the Music Act, the following facts are revealed: (a) sound records (Article 10 Subparag. 1 of the same Act) which disrupt the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or directly or indirectly impair the national prestige of the Republic of Korea; (b) which are produced by many and unspecified persons without registration in the cultural bulletin book (Article 10 Subparag. 2 of the same Act) are trying to protect the national safety and order, their prestige and society’s sound and good morals; and (c) protect the copyright and securing of tax revenues, etc. by preventing them from viewing by many and unspecified persons; and (d) many and unspecified persons were to refer to two or more persons who did not ask for their opening or characteristics, or mutually related relations, etc.; (e) the Defendant, his father, at the time of August 1982, 1982, the Defendant leased the above 2nd class 1 or more of the 3th floor of the 2nd floor of the 3nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 3nd floor of the 3nd floor of the Gam.

The above text of the law seems to be misunderstandings by expressing that it is sufficient for many unspecified persons to use the screening place at a place where many unspecified persons can view. However, in light of the purpose of legislation and its purpose, if it is displayed with gathering many and unspecified persons even if it is closely sealed in view of the purpose of legislation and its purpose, there is a need to punish it. Thus, it is necessary to make sure to the effect that it is to regulate the use of it at a place where many and unspecified persons can view. As in the case of this case, it is difficult to accept the same as in the case of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)