The term "obscenity" as defined in Article 243 of the Criminal Code refers to the acts contrary to the concept of sexual morality by stimulating ordinary people's sexual desire, causing sexual interest and impairing normal sexual humiliation.

Therefore, in order to evaluate a certain object as obscenity, the overall observation and evaluation of the object is merely indecent.

In addition to the degree of harming or subverting human dignity and value, it shall be an expression or expression of sexual prejudice, etc. in an explicit manner to the extent that it may be deemed to have seriously damaged or distorted human dignity and value. In determining whether a person is obscene, it shall not be subjective intent of the actor, etc., but be objective and normative evaluation in accordance with the sound social norms of the society from the perspective of the average person of the society.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3558 Decided March 13, 2008, etc.). However, according to the record, the instant article is merely a simple expression of a woman’s sex organ in a shape that does not fit only the characteristics of the woman’s sex organ, and its color is distinguishable from the actual skin color of the person.

Thus, even though it is true that the substance of this case, when comprehensively observing and evaluating as a whole, shows or describes a certain sexual part of a person’s dignity and value to the extent that it can be deemed to have seriously damaged or distorted the human dignity and value as the subject of regulation under criminal law, it cannot be readily concluded that the substance of this case is an explicit expression or expression of a person’s sexual part in a timely manner.

Therefore, the instant goods may cause sexual interest and cause normal sexual humiliation by stimulating ordinary people's sexual desire.