The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed an obscene act in a way of self-defensive acts by taking away his sexual organ on the street before the lending frequently frequent by the people; (b) around March 6, 2018, around 23:41, in the attached Table 2:41, the Defendant committed a publicly obscene act by inserting hands inside the street of the department store frequently accompanying people as stated in the attached Table 2:5, and openly obscene act in a way of spreading sexual organ, such as the content of the facts charged changed at the trial, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, forty hours of taking the course of sexual assault treatment, confiscation) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

A prosecutor applied for amendments to an indictment with the purport of changing the phrase “in a way that kickers and takes his sexual organ into kicks” among the methods of committing the crimes listed in the attached Table 2 No. 5 among the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor applied for amendments to an indictment with the purport of “in a way that kickers and knicks in the knicks in the knicks”, and this Court

Since the revised indictment and the remainder of the indictment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. First, we examine the obscenity of November 28, 2017.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: the defendant around November 28, 2017, and around 02:44, the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government tin-dong.