Acquittal of the Defendant

1. Defendant A is the owner of the third floor “C” in Southern-gu, Busan.

No person who runs an amusement business affecting the public morals shall allow any person to view or peruse obscene documents, drawings, films, films, records, video products, or other obscene materials at the place where the amusement business affecting the public morals is conducted.

Nevertheless, on April 4, 2013, the Defendant stored obscene materials on the computer screen page installed in each room in the above “C” operated by the Defendant on April 4, 2013, and did not comply with matters to be observed at the customs and business office by allowing customers D (ma, 53 years old) to view the stored obscene materials with a charge of KRW 5,000 per hour.

2. Where multiple acts falling under the same name of crime are continuously conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1269, Sept. 5, 1995; 2007Do595, Mar. 29, 2007; 2009Do4684, Aug. 20, 2009). In the case of a commercial concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, the res judicata effect of a final judgment on one of them shall be limited to other crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do643, Jun. 25, 1991; 91Do2642, Oct. 10, 191); and the legal concept of a natural object is evaluated as one of the acts under social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 Decided February 24, 1987. According to the evidence examined by this court, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million on July 4, 2013 by the Busan District Court as a crime of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (obscenity) at the Busan District Court on July 23, 2013, and the above summary order was finalized on July 23, 2013. The facts constituting the crime of the above summary order are as follows: (a) the Defendant operated an adult PC (PC) room with the trade name of “C” at the place indicated in the facts charged, and (b) around March 14:25, 2013 to five customers, respectively.