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

No person shall distribute or openly exhibit obscene circuits or images through an information and communications network.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and B gathered to use obscene videos on the Internet site to gain profits by making them available to others, and B made six Internet sites, such as C, for the purpose of downloading obscene videos, and the Defendant shared the role by dividing profits generated by displaying, distributing, and selling obscene videos into B through the account.

On October 9, 2016, the Defendant openly displayed, distributed, and sold obscene videos in the same manner 12 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, by openly displaying them on the Internet site, in a manner that sets up a sexually related video of “F” through B’s account at “E located in Sinpo City D” on the Internet site of “C”, and by openly displaying, distributing, and selling them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect B;

1. Copy of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of complaints, written statements, requests for provision of communications data, and replys for communications data;

1. Article 74 (1) 2 and Article 44-7 (1) 1 of the Act on Promotion of Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. concerning the relevant criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was that the Defendant was sentenced to four times a fine for the same crime in 2013, and was sentenced to seven times a suspended indictment.

The Defendant committed the instant crime on the part of his accomplice in 2016, thereby provoking obscene materials to reflect his profits.

The defendant committed a second offense by using another person's ID despite the same power, and it seems that the damage recovery measure was not taken at all.