The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant was not guilty of committing a self-defense as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

However, due to diseases such as damp dust, the return was merely flicker, and there was no criminal intent for obscenity in the performance.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “obscenity act” under Article 245 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of factual mistake refers to an act contrary to the concept of sexual morality by stimulating ordinary people’s sexual desire and impairing normal sexual humiliation by stimulating them, and the act does not necessarily require the expression of sexual conduct or expression of sexual intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1264, Jan. 13, 2006). According to the evidence examined by the court below and the court below, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was feling his hand on the road while getting off knee, and was doing so, and was doing the act of self-defense which seems to have been obviously seen as a witness C.

In the above facts of recognition, even though the Defendant got her sound from C to ‘Y', it was a situation that the Defendant should be flickly flicker due to the Defendant's non-flickness, such as the Defendant's vindication, and the situation that the return should be flicked.

Even in addition to the fact that it is not sufficient to regard the return as an obscene act contrary to the concept of sexual intent by impairing ordinary people's normal sexual humiliation in light of the fact that it is difficult to view it as an obscene act contrary to the Defendant's intention or internal deliberation, the above act by the Defendant, regardless of the Defendant's intention or internal deliberation, constitutes an obscene act as provided for in the crime of obscenity in the public performance, and such act is carried out.