The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gu Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “obscenity” in the crime of obscenity under Article 245 of the Criminal Act refers to an act contrary to the concept of sexual intent by inducing sexual interest and impairing normal sexual humiliation by stimulating ordinary people’s sexual desire, and it does not necessarily require the act to describe a sexual act or to display sexual intent.

In light of the fact that Article 3 (1) 33 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that "a person who embarrasses or displeasure other persons by openly exposing his or her body, such as sexual tamp, etc., at an open place, shall be punished." In the case where an act of exposing a major part of the body, such as sexual tamp, etc. was committed, in light of specific circumstances such as the date and place of exposure, exposure part, exposure method, exposure method, exposure motive circumstance, etc., if it is merely merely merely a degree of harming other persons by simply harming or discomprehing it, it can be deemed as an "act of obscenity" under Article 245 of the Criminal Act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6514, Mar. 12, 2004). Meanwhile, the concept of “obscenity” itself is relative and dynamics that vary according to the changing society and the times. Since it is abstract that has a close relationship with social morals, ethics, religion, etc. in that era, it is ultimately necessary to observe the overall contents from the perspective of the average person rather than the actor’s subjective intent, and make an objective and normative evaluation in accordance with sound social norms.

Supreme Court Decision 94Do2266 delivered on February 10, 1995 and Supreme Court Decision 9Do266 delivered on February 10, 1995.