The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, it is evident that the defendant sent the victim the pictures of this case for the purpose of inducing or meeting his or her sexual desire.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted a person on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the above purpose is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles on the purpose stipulated in Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Act”).

2. Article 13 of the former Act provides that “A person who sends words, sounds, letters, pictures, images, or other things that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion” (hereinafter “the pictures, etc.”) by telephone, mail, computer, or other means of communication with intent to arouse or satisfy his/her own or another person’s sexual desire shall be punished.

The crime of obscenity using communications media under Article 13 of the Act is to guarantee “the right not to contact pictures, etc. that cause a sense of sexual shame against an individual’s will against the right to sexual self-determination” and to protect sexual self-determination, general personal rights, and to establish a sound sexual morals of society.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Do9775 Decided September 13, 2018 (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do9775, Sept. 13, 2018). The lower court determined, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, that “The Defendant sent the victim’s sexual organ photograph, the husband of the victim, for the purpose of criticisming H by making the Defendant’s relationship with H significantly wide, causing negative deliberation on the victim’s H, or settling the relationship with H completely, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant sent the victim’s sexual organ with the intent to arouse or satisfy his/her own or the victim’s sexual desire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do975).”

In this case.