A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant did not constitute “goods” under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act. 2) Defendant did not assault E as stated in the instant facts charged. (B) Defendant did not have intention to damage public goods.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the facts charged on the part of a public performance obscenity by the Defendant’s exposure to a sexual organ within the police box and clothes as stated in the facts charged, constitutes obscene acts under Article 245 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of legal principles, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “any person who damages or conceals documents or other articles used by public offices, or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years, or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” We examine the meaning of “goods used by public offices” as provided in the above provision on the premise of determining whether the entrance door of a police box in this case becomes the object of the crime of damage to public goods. Penal provisions must be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the Defendant. However, the interpretation of penal provisions does not exclude a teleological interpretation by taking into account the legislative intent, purpose, legislative history, etc. of the law, unless it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the statutory text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2363, Jan. 10, 2003).