If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

From August 1, 2013 to August 15:10, 2013, the Defendant, from the first floor of the building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “C”), operated the “KIKO” (hereinafter “instant key bank”) which is a business place for the mutual customs of “C” from the first floor of the building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul”).

However, any person who conducts the amusement business affecting the public morals shall not allow, arrange, or offer any obscene act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 60,000 per hour from an unspecified number of customers who found the said date, time, place, or place, and caused them to do so, and had female employees and kis, and had them do so. The Defendant arranged an obscene act while carrying on the amusement business by allowing her to talk with her chest, her butt, etc. or to do so on her own.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each protocol of interrogation of the police to the defendant, each prosecutor's office, each photograph, each Internet bulletin, and each Internet advertising statute to the defendant;

1. Article 10 (2) and subparagraph 2 of Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Businesses Affecting Public Morals that Appoint the Punishment of Crimes, and Articles 10 (2) and 3 of the same Act

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In the assertion of this case, male customers and female employees are key, and female employees are merely engaged in minor activities, such as bucking around chests and buckbucks with the clothes of female employees, and such activities do not constitute obscenity.

2. Determination

A. The term “obscenity act” under the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals refers to an act that stimulates, plays or satisfies a sexual desire, thereby impairing the ordinary public’s normal sense of sexual humiliation, and contrary to the good sense of sexual morality, and it should be determined on the basis of whether it may be determined on the basis of whether it may be deemed that the person, from the perspective of an average person, has induced sexual humiliation and has harmed normal sexual humiliation by stimulating sexual humiliation

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do101 Decided September 8, 2017