A. Error of mistake

In light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, there is no evidence, and the witness's statement is the only one. The police did not properly observe the procedure to observe in the criminal identification procedure to enhance the credibility of the witness's statement, and it is difficult to recognize its credibility in light of the fact that the witness's statement made by the defendant as a criminal was embodied in time, and rather, the defendant was viewed as TV at the defendant's office, not at the place where the crime of this case was committed at the time of the time indicated in the facts charged of this case, but at the time of the defendant's statement made by the defendant (on the spot proof), the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Before being detained in the instant case, the Defendant was supporting the mother at his residence, and was hospitalized in the hospital due to knee-type surgery on either side of his mother, and the Defendant had no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in addition to the past record sentenced to a stay of six months in the suspension of the execution of six months due to performance and obscenity in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing (two months in prison) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 1. The defendant was present at the Busan High Court 20 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, and 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, and 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, 1.0 days after his/her arrest, and 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, and 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, and 3 days after his/her arrest, and 1.0 days after his/her arrest, 2.0 days after his/her arrest, he/she reported his/her arrest to the Busan High Court 3rd Police Station that he/she was using his/her photograph of the police station.

First of all, considering the fact that the defendant appeared to be a criminal of this case, it is difficult to find that he/she was a witness of this case at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she was merely a witness of this case at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she was still a witness of this case at the time of his/her own testimony, and that he/she was a witness of this case at the time of his/her own questioning and identification of the suspect of this case, and that he/she was a witness of this case at the time of his/her own questioning and identification of the suspect of this case, it is difficult to find the witness of this case at the time of his/her own testimony of this case at the time of his/her own testimony of 1 to find the witness of this case and that he/she was a witness of this case at the time of his/her own testimony of this case, and that he/she was a witness of this case at the time of his/her own questioning and identification of the suspect of this case, and that he/she was a witness of this case.

다음으로, 피고인이 주장하는 현장 부재 증명 주장(알리바이)에 관하여 보건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하고 조사한 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 피고인은 이 사건 범행이 일어날 무렵인 당일 오후 3시경 집에서 바둑 프로그램을 시청하였는데, 당시 조C4와 홍C5 의 대국을 보고 있었다고 진술하였으나, 실제로 그 시각에는 이C6과 윤C7의 대국이 진행되고 있었고(증거기록 제40 내지 47면 참조), 조C4와 홍C8(피고인이 말한 '홍C5'가 아니다)의 대국은 같은 날 오전 10시부터 12시 사이에 방영(제4기 한국물가정보배 프로기전)되었을 뿐이므로, 이에 관한 피고인의 진술은 믿기 어려운 점, ② 피고인의 동생인 좌C9(X-X-XXXX)이 이 사건 당일 15:18:23경 피고인의 집(051-⑥-◎)으로 전화를 하여 약 13초간 전화통화를 한 사실이 있고(증거기록 제87면), 김C10(010-XX-XX)은 같은 날 15:19:17 경 자신의 어머니인 좌C9(X-X-XXXX)에게 전화를 걸어 약 6초간 전화통화를 한 사실이 있는바(당심 2009. 3. 12.자 SK Telecom의 통신자료 통보내역 참조), 당심에서 좌C9는 당시 전화를 받은 피고인에게 자신의 아들인 김C10을 깨워 학원을 보내라는 취지로 말하였다고 진술하였고, 김C10은 피고인이 자신을 깨우길래 바로 자신의 어머니인 좌C9에게 휴대전화로 전화를 한 것이라고 진술하고 있으나, 좌C9와 김C10은 모두 피고인과 동거하는 가족으로 피고인에게 유리한 진술만을 하였을 가능성이 높아 그 신빙성이 높다고 하기 어렵고, 특히 김C10은 당초 경찰에서 이 사건 당일 오후 2시 10분쯤에 안방에서 잠이 들었는데 오후 3시 20분쯤 자신의 휴대폰이 울려 잠을 깨어 받아보니까 어머니인 좌C9가 일어나라고 전화를 한 것이었고, 다시 잠을 자다가 오후 3시 40분쯤 집 전화기가 울려 전화를 받았는데, 피고인과 함께 전화를 받았다고 하는 등 좌C9로부터 2차례에 걸쳐 전화를 받았다고 진술하다가(김C10은 경찰에서 이 사건 당일 오후 2시 10분부터 3시 40분까지 안방에서 잠을 자고 있었기 때문에 피고인이 집에 있었는지, 외출을 하였는지 모른다고 진술하기도 하였다), 당심에 와서는 자신이 집 전화를 직접 받은 적은 없다는 취지로 진술하는 등 그 진술이 일관되지 않고 있어 그 진술의 신빙성이 높지 않은 점, ③ 설령 피고인이 위와 같이 좌C9의 전화를 받았다고 하더라도, 이 사건 범행 현장으로부터 피고인의 집까지의 거리는 1.05km 정도로서 도보로 16분, 자전거로 4분 정도 소요되는 거리에 있을 뿐이어서 피고인이 이 사건 범행 현장에서 도주한 다음 택시 등을 이용하여 피고인의 집으로 돌아왔다면 그 시간적 여유(약 12분 정도, 이 사건 당일 오후 15:06 경부터 같은 날 15:18경까지)는 충분한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 김C10, 좌C9의 각 당심 증언을 비롯한 피고인의 변소에 부합하는 취지의 여러 증거만으로 피고인의 알리바이에 관한 주장을 인정하기는 어렵고, 오히려 원심 판시 각 증거와 당심에서의 강C1의 증언 및 박C3의 일부 증언 등을 종합하면 피고인이 이 사건 공소사실 기재 일시, 장소에서 공연 음란행위를 한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 이점에 관한 피고인의 주장도 이유 없다.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Although the crime of this case was committed on June 16, 2008 at the Busan District Court sentenced two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment and was likely to be tried simultaneously with the crime of public performance and obscenity established on June 24, 2008, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant in his own sexual organ before and after being viewed by the female, and it is not good that the crime of this case was committed detrimental to the general public's sound sexual morals. The defendant was committed in this case with the same kind of crime, and it is difficult to recognize its opening prior to the crime of this case. In addition, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, before and after the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the same crime of this case, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and family environment, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be justified even if considering various circumstances that led to the crime of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju