A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

No one shall distribute, sell, lease, or openly display obscene codes, phrases, sounds, images, or motion pictures through an information and communications network.

Nevertheless, around April 9, 2014, the Defendant posted a total of 7,379 obscene video images bearing sexual intercourse between men and women, body of both men and women, and gender, from around September 3, 2018, at the Defendant’s house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the Internet website, and using the offline “F” as shown in the list of crimes, such as the video of “F” by accessing the Internet website via a computer, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant displayed a total of 7,379 obscene images openly using information and communications networks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police investigation report (execution of a warrant of search, seizure and inspection), police investigation report (Interim investigation report and future investigation plan);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on Diana, D adult business routes, and D site business routes photographs;

1. Article 74(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Specific Criminal Crimes and Articles 74(1)1 and 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Punishment, Etc. (generally, the crime of this case is an inclusive crime inasmuch as legal benefits from damage are the same as well as where exhibition activities are repeated in the same manner for a single and continuous crime following a single and continuous criminal offense. The prosecutor indicted the crime of this case as concurrent crimes, but the court recognizes the crime of this case as it is, on the other hand, recognized the crime of this case as a single comprehensive crime, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes charged as substantive concurrent crimes is imposed differently, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, it is recognized as a single comprehensive crime without modification of an indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do54

1. The sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is as follows.