인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
학술저널
Full-text
오류 신고하기해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
초록·키워드
In the year of 2005, VOD Providers who made VODs for adults and provided them to portal site, and CEOs of portal sites which provided those VODs to Internet adults users were prosecuted in violation of §65(1)(ⅱ) of ?Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.?. The clause provides “A person who has distributed, sold, rented, or openly displayed obscene codes, letters, sounds, visuals, or films through information and communications network shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won”.
From the year of 2006, the judgments of the courts begin to be issued. Finally, the Supreme Court held that VOD Providers who made VODs for adults and provided them to portal site are not guilty. But This judgment of the Supreme Court is meaningful in the following points.
Firstly, the Supreme Court did not make a mistake in differentiating standards of obscenity medium by medium in contrast with the lower courts. ‘Obscenity’ is not the concept that the standard can be changed medium by medium.
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not make a error in confusing ‘regulation system of illegal content’ and ‘regulation system of harmful content’ in contrast with the lower courts. Confusing ‘regulation system of illegal content’ and ‘regulation system of harmful content’ provokes unconstitutional consequence because of infringment of adult"s right to know.
Thirdly, but the Supreme Court also made a mistake by not respecting Korea Media Rating Board"s rating of concerned VODs. The media or content rating of public authority like Korea Media Rating Board is a process of reflecting contemporary common ideas on sexual speech or obscenity.
From the year of 2006, the judgments of the courts begin to be issued. Finally, the Supreme Court held that VOD Providers who made VODs for adults and provided them to portal site are not guilty. But This judgment of the Supreme Court is meaningful in the following points.
Firstly, the Supreme Court did not make a mistake in differentiating standards of obscenity medium by medium in contrast with the lower courts. ‘Obscenity’ is not the concept that the standard can be changed medium by medium.
Secondly, the Supreme Court did not make a error in confusing ‘regulation system of illegal content’ and ‘regulation system of harmful content’ in contrast with the lower courts. Confusing ‘regulation system of illegal content’ and ‘regulation system of harmful content’ provokes unconstitutional consequence because of infringment of adult"s right to know.
Thirdly, but the Supreme Court also made a mistake by not respecting Korea Media Rating Board"s rating of concerned VODs. The media or content rating of public authority like Korea Media Rating Board is a process of reflecting contemporary common ideas on sexual speech or obscenity.
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-070-001369610
