When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On May 11, 2018, the Defendant, at the bus stops located in the C Apartment at Hanam-si, Hanam-si, and laid off the victim E (bee 22 years old) at the bus stops at D school bus stops located in C apartment, and committed an obscene act openly by making it possible for many and unspecified persons to view the sexual upper part of the sexual flag by raising his hand on the front part of the bus and exposing his hand with his sexual flag.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (Attachment of evidence photographs);

1. Article 245 of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order has no record of the same kind of crime, the health condition after traffic accidents is not good, the defendant's age, occupation, sex, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors:

When comprehensively considering the type, motive, content, and result of the instant crime exempt from the employment restriction order, the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the prevention of sex crimes subject to registration that can be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims, there are special circumstances in which the Defendant’s employment shall not be restricted pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant.