Defendant

In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s interference with the performance of official duties (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) that a police officer already issued a penalty receipt to a Defendant and a person subject to the medical care and custody disposition (hereinafter “Defendant”) but forced the Defendant to move to a shelter against the Defendant’s will or continuously attempt to make physical contact with another place without any grounds, exceeds the bounds of legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, the Defendant’s act of exercising the tangible power within the meaning of a provision on this cannot be deemed as interfering with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstructing the performance of official duties is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The fact that the Defendant exposed a sexual organ (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) of the public performance and obscenity is difficult to constitute a crime of obscenity of public performance because it is difficult to constitute a case where he causes sexual interest or feel sexual humiliation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the obscenity of a public performance and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “obscenity” in the crime of obscenity of a public performance.

B. The lower court’s judgment in relation to the treatment, custody (misunderstanding of the facts) did not have any mental disorder at present and, even though there was no risk of re-offending, erred by misapprehending the fact.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case against Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the obstruction of performance of official duties

B) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of interference with the performance of official duties is justifiable.