beta
Main Issues
The meaning of “obscenity” under Article 243 of the Criminal Act and the degree of expression to be evaluated as “obscenity”
[Reference Provisions]
Article 243 of the Criminal Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 2003Do988 Decided May 16, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1418) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3558 Decided March 13, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 537) Supreme Court Decision 201Do16580 Decided October 25, 2012
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Gwangju District Court Decision 2013No1789 Decided November 27, 2013
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
“obscenity” as stipulated in Article 243 of the Criminal Act refers to the expression or representation of a person’s specific sexual reputation, etc., in an explicit manner, to such an extent that it would have seriously impaired and distorted human dignity and value beyond simply stimulating the overall observation of a thing in order to evaluate it as obscenity, it should be such an expression or representation as to stimulate the sexual humiliation, etc. of an ordinary person, thereby undermining the normal sense of sexual humiliation.
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 can be deemed that it seriously damaged or distorted human dignity and value, and it does not constitute obscene goods that may cause sexual humiliation to the general public and violate the concept of good sexual morality, even if it is viewed by social norms as such, and it does not constitute obscene goods that may cause sexual humiliation to the general public, and that it does not constitute a obscenity contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to obscene goods, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)