A. The Defendant, in the time and place indicated in the facts charged, committed an act of self-defense by putting his sexual organ out on his hand, such as the content indicated in the facts charged, while putting him into a sculing urbry and her clothes, and then sculing it under such sculing.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of the public performance obscenity is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant committed an act such as exposing a sexual organ at the time and time as indicated in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed as constituting “obscenity,” and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of obscenity.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of the public performance obscenity is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

C. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (including fine of 3,00,000, and completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto determination, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in contravention of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court, and the first instance court claims the Defendant through the examination of evidence, such as the progress of the third trial date and the examination of the witness with respect to E.