The images recorded in the facts charged by the Defendant (hereinafter “the images of this case”) are not obscene images as prescribed by the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., but did not have any intention to spread obscene images to the Defendant.

2. The images of this case show an intensively close image while specifically describing sexual intercourses between different sex or same sex, and other similar sexual acts, etc. and expressing excessively lewdness and stimulatively, and are treated with a part of the sexual organs.

Even if it is not only to reduce or mitigate the degree of sexual stimulation, but it can not be found any other factors to mitigate sexual stimulation such as artistic thoughts.

In addition, in light of the overall content, method of photographing, and title attached to images, there is no context to view that the images were taken according to the literary, artistic, ideological, scientific, scientific, medical, and educational intent, as well as the intent to cause a male-centered sexual interest, based on the development of a male-centered sexual concept.

Therefore, this is indecent to create sexual interest merely.

In addition to the degree of harming or disturbing social norms, it is a obscene product that entirely or mainly leads to sexual interest in light of social norms, and does not have any literary, artistic, ideological, scientific, medical, or educational value, and that constitutes a obscene product that excessively and objectively expresses and expresses sexual acts and distorts human dignity and value.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13352, Oct. 26, 2017). As long as the instant images constitute obscene materials, whether such images were distributed through existing adult broadcasting, etc. or limited viewing by minors, such as the Defendant’s assertion.