The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s specific physical part of a woman’s body may sufficiently stimulate or duplicate the sexual humiliation, and it constitutes obscene materials that violate the general public’s sense of sexual humiliation and good sexual morality, and thus, constitutes obscene materials, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges of this case, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on obscenity.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the relevant legal principles, the article of this case is a real container, which re-supposes the part of women's sound, her butt, and her part of the port, and is colored differently from the surrounding part in its shape and color.

In light of the fact that the Defendant displayed and sold the above objects on the inside display stand of the adult shop, it does not mean that the Defendant displayed and sold them on the adult shop, thereby undermining the normal sense of sexual shame and violating the concept of good faith. In light of the fact that each color is in a single color of a brightness of a brightness, and there is a big difference in the actual shape of a woman. The overall shape is merely a simple reproduction of the part of a woman’s sound, tack, tack, and tack, and tack, and even if the shape of the instant objects is similar to that of a woman’s sexual flag, the Defendant merely displayed and sold them on the inside display stand of the adult shop.

It cannot be readily concluded that the instant article does not constitute obscene material, on the ground that it does not constitute an obscene material, because it is difficult to readily conclude that it has expressed or expressed sexual parts in an explicit manner to such an extent that it may have seriously impaired human dignity and value.