For the purpose of implementing the rule of certain laws, an agency may issue interpretive rulings, so as to provide a necessary basis for future action by the same agency or its subordinate agencies. The letter ruling at issue, (81) Chiang-Ban-Tze-02275 (February 10, 1992) is considered constitutional, as it exemplifies a reading of the prohibitive provision of Article 32, Subparagraph 3, of the Publication Act in the context of determining whether a publication would, in its content, be considered in contravention of Article 235 of the Criminal Code which prescribes the offenses of obscenity. The letter ruling containing specific requirements for discerning obscene materials, including the requirement of whether or not they appeal to prurient interests, does not simply apply to nor thereby outlaw all written or pictorial publications under challenge; it therefore conforms to the referenced purpose of the Publication Act and is not in conflict with the Constitution. Obscene publications are those publications that, by objective standards, can stimulate or satisfy a prurient interest, generate among common people a feeling of shame or distaste, thereby offending their sense of morality, and undermine societal cultural ethics. To distinguish obscene publications from legitimate art, medical or educational publications, one must examine the features and aims of the publications at issue as a whole, and adapt them to the contemporary common values of society. In addition, cultural ethics often vary subject to social development and changing customs. Any rulings of the agency in-charge must be flexible rather than rigid, and should be improved and adjusted from time to time, in light of both the true intent of the Constitution to safeguard freedom of speech and press, and the government's interest in maintaining a moral social fabric and the welfare of children and youth. As to determining whether in any individual cases the definition of obscenity has been met, it goes without saying that the judge shall make his decision in light of concrete factual situations, pursuant to his independent judgment, in both fact-finding and law application, without being bound by the interpretive ruling of the executive branch.

　　　 That the judges shall, in accordance with law, try cases independently is set forth in Article 80 of the Constitution. The judges, when trying cases, are not bound by interpretive rulings of law made by various administrative agencies based upon their respective authorities. However, if a judge applies a ruling to a case, the parties to the case may in turn petition for this Yuan's interpretation pursuant to Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act. The final and binding judgment in the case at issue relies on the letter ruling of the Government Information Office, Executive Yuan, (81) Chiang-Ban-Tze-02275, as the basis for its fact-finding. The applicant specifically challenges the letter as being constitutionally questionable, and as stated above, we shall take the case for review.　　

　　　 Freedom of the press is one of the foundations of constitutional democracy. Publications are an important medium in which people can express their thoughts in writing, through which public opinion may be reflected, democracy strengthened, and cultural, moral, economic development nurtured, and for these reasons, are protected by Article 11 of the Constitution. However, given the vast and deep influence upon society that widely disseminated publications may bring about, anyone who enjoys the freedom of press must be self-disciplined, undertake the associated social responsibility and refrain from abusing his freedom. Therefore, anyone whose publications lower moral values and customs, jeopardize social harmony and public order may be subject to legal sanctions imposed by the state.

　　　 What laws may prescribe are often abstract norms. For the purpose of implementing the rule of certain laws, an agency may issue interpretive rulings, so as to provide a necessary basis for future action by the same agency or its subordinate agencies. The standard for judging whether a publication constitutes a crime of obscenity by instigating obscene conduct may vary because of differences in customs and ethics in various nations, but one thing in common among different nations is the governmental regulation of obscene publications. Obscene publications are those publications that, by objective standards, can stimulate or satisfy a prurient interest, generate among common people a feeling of shame or distaste, thereby offending their sense of sexual morality, and undermining societal cultural ethics. To distinguish obscene publications from legitimate art, medical or educational publications, one must examine the features and aims of the publications at issue as a whole, and adapt them to the contemporary common values of society.

　　　 The Government Information Office of the Executive Yuan, under Article 7 of the Publication Act, is the agency in the Central Government in charge of implementing the said Act. Having considered the social environment and customs of this nation, its issuance of the letter ruling at issue, (81) Chiang-Ban-Tze-02275 (February 10, 1992), stating that whether a publication in its content contravenes, or instigates others to contravene, the obscenity offenses prescribed in Article 32, Subparagraph 3, of the Publication Act, is to be judged according to the following criteria:

　　　 Administrative offenses and criminal offenses contain different constituent elements. Criminal adjudication and administrative adjudication must function differently in terms of fact-finding. To determine whether in any individual cases a certain pictorial or written publication has met the legal definition of obscenity, the judge shall make his decision in light of concrete factual situations, pursuant to his independent judgment, in both fact-finding and law application, without being bound by the interpretive ruling of the executive branch. It is to be noted here that this interpretation is made upon the referenced ruling of the Government Information Office of the Executive Yuan only, and is not dispositive on any other issues about the Publication Act.