The term "obscenity" as defined in Article 243 of the Criminal Act shall be against 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 of the object should be beyond simply showing that it is indecent, and thus, it should be objectively expressed or describing a person’s specific sexual injury, etc. to such an extent that it can be deemed that the human dignity and value has been seriously damaged or distorted.

In this regard, the court below is justified in holding that the object of this case, as a male self-help organization, is not sexually expressed or expressed in an explicit manner to the extent that it may seriously undermine human dignity and value, and it does not constitute obscene goods that may cause harm to ordinary people's sexual humiliation and violate the concept of good sexual morality, even if it is deemed that the object of this case is sexually expressed or expressed in an explicit manner, and that it does not constitute obscene goods that may cause sexual humiliation and violate the concept of good sexual morality, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to obscene goods.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.