The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute “obscenity for men,” which the Defendant displayed for sale purpose (hereinafter “instant product”), the lower court convicted him of the instant facts charged on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of obscenity or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of obscenity, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The term “obscenity”, “obscenity,” refers to an expression that goes against the concept of sexual intent by stimulating ordinary people’s sexual desire by causing sexual humiliation and undermining normal sexual humiliation, and is merely indecent when considering the overall observation and evaluation of representations.
To the extent that it can be deemed that the human dignity and value, which is a person with personality to be respected and protected, beyond the degree of harming or subverting, has seriously been damaged or distorted, such interpretation shall be construed as an expression or expression of sexual prejudice or act in an explicit manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du23689, Jun. 23, 2009; 2008Do254, Apr. 1, 2008). Such interpretation shall be equally applied to obscene materials prescribed in Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals.
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the substance of this case, using any solid container that embucks that embucks about the human body, and the body part of the women leading to bucks, which are almost the same as the actual part, were reproduced. In particular, women’s external part and embucks were sembuckly depied (Evidence No. 8-9 of the evidence record), and (ii).