logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.22 2017노2289
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is examined to the extent that the defense counsel’s oral argument submitted after the lapse of the period not timely filed for appeal is supplemented.

A public notice on the determination of a harmful article to female families (sex organizations) and a business establishment banned from accessing and prohibiting juveniles (hereinafter “public notice on the father of female families of this case”) is designated as a harmful article to juveniles, which is a thing that is not likely to seriously undermine the body and body of juveniles. This is contrary to the principle of the superiority of law and is in violation of the Constitution and law, and thus, it cannot be subject to criminal punishment against the defendant based on the public notice on the father of female families of this case.

Even though the notice on the father's family of this case is not unconstitutional or unlawful, the special container, the Red Sea, which was sold by the defendant, is a medical device permitted and does not constitute a juvenile harmful article.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is that the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with the Yengdong Special Corpon or Dam Corpon, which was sold by the Defendant, is a sexual tool to extend the time of sexual activity by strengthening the sexual stimulation, or by allowing the termination of a male’s sexual organ during sexual intercourse with the Yengdong Special Corpon, which is highly likely to cause the juveniles who are weak in the atmosphere and lack of self-control to go against the excessive sexual stimulation.

Therefore, this is determined as "sexual-related articles that might seriously harm juveniles' mental and physical health unless the use of sexual instruments, etc. that encourage juveniles to commit obscene acts is restricted" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 (b) (i) of the former Juvenile Protection Act, and thus, it constitutes "sexual-related articles that are likely to seriously harm juveniles' mental and physical health, unless the use of sexual instruments, etc. that encourage juveniles is restricted.

The defendant's assertion was rejected and the defendant was convicted (200,000 won).

(b)review each party;

arrow