[1] Whether the term "tourist business" under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Public Health Control Act constitutes "tourist business" under the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of "video products" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals

[3] The case holding that in a case where a video product, which is prohibited under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, is allowed to be viewed at a customs office, in a case where a video product, which is a video file recycling device, was installed in a telecom and installed in a telecom, and the identification number was added to the visitors to view such obscene video product

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Health Control Act includes “those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among lodging businesses, lodging businesses, and public bath businesses under Article 2(1)2 through 4 of the Public Health Control Act.” Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Health Control Act provides for only public bath businesses without stipulating all of the lodging businesses and user businesses. Considering the legislative history of the above provision, it is natural to interpret “tourist business” as not going against the phrase “those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” In light of the fact that it is natural, it does not seem that the said provision directly provides for the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Health Control Act and separately delegates specific scope to the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Accordingly, the term “tourist business” under Article 2(1)2 of the Public Health Control Act constitutes “the amusement business affecting public morals under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting

[2] The term “video products” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals which prohibit the public morals business place to view obscene video products means video products under Article 2 subparag. 12 of the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act, namely, works whose continuous images are contained in digital media or devices such as tapes or disks, and which can be seen or seen and heard by a machine, electrical, electronic, or telecommunications device. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret them as excluded from game products under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Game Industry Promotion Act and those operated by computer programs (limited to those with no motion picture recorded).

[3] The case holding that in a case where a video product, which is prohibited by Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, is allowed to be viewed at a customs office, in a case where he installed a DNA displayer (DivX Plaer), which is a video file recycling device, installed in the telecom, and posted a password to the guests, and let them view the obscene video product stored by placing the password

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals (amended by Act No. 5942 of March 31, 199), Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, Article 2(1)2 of the Public Health Control Act / [2] Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, Article 2 subparag. 12 of the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Game Industry Act / [3] Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Act on the

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-soo

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007No2737 Decided April 30, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “PP”) includes “those prescribed by the Presidential Decree among lodging businesses, lodging businesses, and public bath businesses under Article 2(1)2 through 4 of the Public Health Control Act”, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the PPP Act provides that “the term “those prescribed by the Presidential Decree among public bath businesses” means the special public bath business under Article 3 subparag. 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Act.” In light of Article 2 subparag. 2 of the PPP Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the PPP Article 2 of the Public Health Control Act, it constitutes only public bath businesses, which include “those prescribed by the Presidential Decree” among lodging businesses under Article 2 subparag. 2(b) of the PP Article 2 of the PPP Article 2 of the same Act, and the term “the former Enforcement Decree of the PPP Article 2 of the Public Health Control Act is not included in the accommodation business and public bath business under Article 2 subparag. 2(b) of the former Public Health Control Act.

The judgment of the court below is just in light of the relevant laws and regulations, and there is no error of law as to the scope of the amusement business or no error of law.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Public morals Act prohibits any act of allowing any person to view obscene video products as matters to be observed by an amusement business operator at a public morals business place. According to Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Public morals Act, the term “video products as prescribed by Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Public morals Act” refers to the works contained in any digital medium or device such as tape or disc, which can be seen or seen by a machine, electrical, electronic, or communication device, and it is reasonable to interpret that the video products and computer program (limited to those without a motion picture) under Article 2 subparag. 12 of the Promotion of the Video Industry Act are excluded from the category of video products and computer program (limited to those without a motion picture) under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the non-indicted 2, who is an employee of the business office of this case, installed the DNA Player (DivX) in 502 and 506 of the instant telecom, and allowed guests to view the video products stored in the DNA Placo, etc., and the DNA Placo constitutes a machine that can be seen by reproducing a number of video files stored in the inner hard disc (DivX: Div. Dr. Div) through TV sets. The act of the non-indicted 2, who is an employee of the instant telecomer, constitutes an obscene video disc, and the act of the non-indicted 3,000,000,000, non-indicted 3,000,000,000 were stored, and then, it constitutes an obscene video product and its password, which should be seen that the non-indicted 3,00,000,000,000,000,00.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is just in its conclusion, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of obscene video products and the act of allowing the viewing of obscene video products under the Public morals Act

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 1 of the Customs Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the preservation of good morals and the protection of juveniles by regulating acts, etc. harmful to the cultivation of juveniles and to the preservation of public morals and the preservation of public morals applicable to juveniles, as well as to the protection of juveniles," the legislative purpose of Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act is to prohibit the act of allowing juveniles to view obscene materials in light of the above legislative purpose is the minimum necessary means to achieve the above legislative purpose, and even if the right to sexual self-determination of adults is partially restricted, it is reasonable to determine that the act cannot be seen as not meeting the balance of legal interests by seriously deviating from the relation between the public interest effect that the punishment of the act was made, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Customs Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)