The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant’s obscene act of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles lack performance, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a five months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, “patent” referred to in the crime of obscenity in the relevant legal doctrine refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized, so performance is denied if only a certain minority can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 73Do409 delivered on August 21, 1973, although it is not a direct issue, it is not a matter but a prosecutor asserts to the effect that performance is recognized if a obscenity act was conducted at a place in which many and unspecified persons can face.

However, even if a obscenity act was conducted at a place where many and unspecified people can communicate (the distance from the test), if it is objectively recognized that only a specified minority can be recognized, performance will be denied, and even if it is not objectively recognized that only a specified minority in domestic affairs can be recognized, there may be cases where the intention of performance is denied according to all circumstances.

For reversely, obscenity was made at a place where many unspecified people are unable to communicate.

Even if performance is recognized, performance can be recognized.

For the purpose of this Decree, obscenity is a obscene act at the house in which she is living together;

Even if the structure of the house is of a structure in which many, unspecified or unspecified persons can easily recognize the obscenity, performance can be recognized.

2) In the instant case, the lower court and the first instance court adopted.