A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 2016, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s home located B B 301, carried out a video file of the title “D” by accessing “W.Bonisk.com” to the website (www.bonisk.com) using a computer.

From around that time to April of the same year, the Defendant run 49 video files on the above site in total 49 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached list, at the Defendant’s house.

Accordingly, the Defendant distributed obscene sound and image through information and communication network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the internal investigation report (e.g., distribution of cyber pornography materials), evidentiary materials, investigation reports (verification of the case of additional posting of Internet obscene materials), closures of the bulletin list, notices printed materials, and video reproduction screen pictures of obscene materials;

1. Article 74 (1) 2, Article 44-7 (1) 1, and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Articles 74-7 (1) 1, and 2-7 (1) 1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of punishment by imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing for Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service and Order to Attend, thereby damaging public morals and exposing many and unspecified persons to obscene materials.

The Defendant, who received a summary order prior to the instant judgment, seems to have been aware of his responsibility without emphasizing only his own economic situation and did not reflect on the summary order.

Even after the instant case, the Defendant appears to have distributed obscene materials on another Internet website.

However, prior to the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the same criminal record and did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, and motive and motive of the crime.