If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

To the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right of defense, part of the facts charged was revised according to the facts acknowledged as the result of evidence examination.

1. On November 15, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00, at the play grounds and flowers located in the G apartment complex in the Sung-nam-si G apartment complex in the Gyeonggi-si, Sungnam-si; (b) even though the place was in which people’s passage is frequent, the Defendant opened a bomer and carried the fingers into hand, and repeatedly engaged in a obscenity act by repeatedly reporting the fingers; and (c) openly obscenity act.

2. On November 14, 2019, around 14:53, the Defendant used self-defense and publicly obscenity in the same manner around the playground located in the B apartment complex.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement to be prepared;

1. Photographs of the suspect at the time of detection;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Article 245 of the Criminal Act and Article 245 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. In full view of the Defendant’s age, family environment and social ties, records of the crime, details and motive of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, risk of recidivism, the disadvantage of the Defendant resulting from the employment restriction order and the effect of preventing sex crimes that may be achieved therefrom, etc., it is determined that there is a special circumstance that the Defendant may not be restricted from employment pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant seems to have observed each of the crimes in this case, and it seems that he had considerable mental impulses to the victims.

However, the defendant.