The judgment of the court below is obscene in violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (obscenity).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the fraud in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (obscenity)

A. The phrase “obscenity” stipulated in Article 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. refers to the following acts: (a) the expression “obscenity” is contrary to the concept of sexual morality by stimulating ordinary people’s sexual desire by causing sexual humiliation and undermining normal sense of sexual shame; and (b) the overall observation and evaluation of the expression as a whole is indecent.

The expression or expression of sexual prejudice or act, which is a person who has the character to be respected and protected beyond the degree of expression or disturbance, is expressed or expressed in an explicit manner to the extent that it may be deemed that the person’s dignity and value, which is a person who has the character to be respected and protected, has seriously been damaged or distorted. In light of social norms, it means that the person appeals exclusively or mainly sexual interest and does not have the literary, artistic, ideological, scientific, medical, or educational value, and that the person does not have nitical, artistic, scientific, or educational value. In determining the obscenity of a expressive material, it is not subjective intent of the producer, but from the perspective of the average person of that society, objective and normative evaluation should be made in accordance

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3558, Mar. 13, 2008).

The lower court: (a) the language, text, image, or motion picture as indicated in the facts charged in this part of the charges were extracted from a video product produced after deliberation by the Korea Media Rating Board, which was actually offered to paid members at the site of this case; and (b) each of the above images or motion pictures.