A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged (obscenity display) on a different premise, despite the fact that the Defendant’s act of mistake (as to the part not guilty), constitutes obscene materials, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Having accepted the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of unfair sentencing, or even if not, this case is unfair because the defendant did not reflect his mistake, and the citizens want to take account of the fact that it is extremely poor that the goods of this case were displayed for a long time in a place less than 53 meters away from elementary school and fire, which goes against the good faith concept of sexual intention, etc.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The court below held that “obscenity” refers to an ordinary person’s sexual desire by stimulating the ordinary person’s sexual desire, causing sexual humiliation, impairing a normal sense of sexual shame, and that it goes against the concept of sexual morality in order to evaluate a certain object as obscene, the court below should observe it as a whole, and clearly express or describe a person’s specific sexual reputation, etc. in an explicit manner to such an extent that it can be deemed that a person’s dignity and value was seriously damaged and distorted. The following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., (i) the object of this case has been reproduced in an original form by a live container; and (ii) the sound part of the woman’s sound part in its form and color is color different from that of its surrounding skin color.

In addition, each color is a brightness of a woman, not a bruptly expression of a woman's sound, such as a detailed repying of the sound form.