The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal committed the instant crime again despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime, and the lower court sentenced the Defendant to four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution, but did not impose an additional collection of the Defendant’s criminal proceeds.

In full view of these facts, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

The lower court determined that the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Distribution of obscenity) was established by each business route, and determined that the crime was committed by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

However, since the Defendant repeatedly posted a obscene video file on one website by the same method, it is reasonable to view that the legal interest of damage is a single, the form of a crime is identical, and a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single criminal intent is a single crime.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acceptance of a crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Thus, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

The court recognizes the criminal facts charged as they are, and recognizes the same as they are, the criminal facts charged as concurrent crimes: Provided, That even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is different, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, the court may punish the criminal facts as a single comprehensive crime without any changes in the indictment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). 【Judgment en banc Decision” and summary of evidence are the court.