The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of facts merely viewed a obscenity, and did not publicly engage in obscenity, such as the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in order to complete sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the facts constituting a crime are recognized according to the witness’

A witness E showed that the criminal defendant committed a self-defense act in the investigative agency, while reporting to the police, the criminal defendant continued to commit a self-defense act, the criminal defendant left the place and made a statement that he/she puts the criminal defendant out of a place of convenience where he/she was contacted by the witness, and these witness's statements specifically describe the situation at the time, it is difficult for the witness to find any motive or reason to make a false statement about the criminal defendant who was not aware of the witness at all, and according to the police officer's investigation report sent to the scene and investigated, the witness's statements are believed in that it was impossible to find the body suspected of being satisfy at the scene where the act of self-defense was committed.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The fact that the defendant is the primary offender and is the disabled of class 3 of intellectual disability should be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant. However, considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the shape, circumstance, age, criminal defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.