Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

No one shall distribute, sell, rent, or openly display obscene codes, letters, sound, images, or motion pictures through an information and communications network.

Nevertheless, around February 8, 2019, the Defendant opened a total of 1,050 obscene materials from May 7, 2016 to March 8, 2019, as indicated in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crime, including setting up a 1,050 obscene materials, from around May 7, 2016 to around March 8, 2019, after having access to “D”, which is a web site, to “D” and “G”, to “D”, which is a web site, and then having opened a sexually sexually sexual intercourse on the adult bulletin board.

Accordingly, the Defendant displayed obscene images or videos openly over 1,050 times through information and communication network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police record and each list of seizure;

1. Police investigation report (organization of a list of crimes and evidence collection evidence obtained), police investigation report (for a suspect's use of obscene material business, profit details obtained from obscene material business) and application of statutes;

1. Article 74(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Specific Criminal Crimes and Articles 74(1)1 and 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Punishment, Etc. (generally, the crime of this case is an inclusive crime inasmuch as legal benefits from damage are the same as well as where exhibition activities are repeated in the same manner for a single and continuous crime following a single and continuous crime. The prosecutor indicted the crime of this case as concurrent crimes, but the court recognizes the crime of this case as it is, on the other hand, recognized the crime of this case as a single comprehensive crime, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes charged as substantive concurrent crimes is imposed differently, it does not affect the defendant's defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987).

1. Articles 70(1) and 69 of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse.