logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.20 2014노2781
공연음란
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant merely sent urines to urines within the train because it was difficult to have urines due to the symptoms of urology or urology, and did not commit obscene acts, such as self-defluence, etc. The Defendant’s act of exposing sexual organ does not constitute obscenity under Article 245 of the Criminal Act merely because the Defendant’s act of exposing sexual organ is to the extent that it embarrasses or displeasure other people.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of facts that there was no intention of public performance obscenity 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine cannot be accepted. ① On December 16:30, 2013, the Defendant has recognized the fact that he was seated at the driver’s seat and was exposed to knee and was exposed to knee, including clothes. However, the Defendant asserted that he reported knee within the given period of time that he had been diagnosed of urine urine and neutical cy (Evidence record 40 pages). Based on this, the Defendant asserted that he had been diagnosed of urology, urology, and urine urology (record record 35) due to the above disease.

② However, prior to the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any record of receiving hospital treatment for the treatment of neutronism and neutronism.

arrow