[1] The meaning of obscene acts of obscenity and its subjective requirements

[2] Whether the act of bodily exposure constitutes an obscene act under Article 245 of the Criminal Code, in a case where it is deemed that the act of bodily exposure is merely merely a mere shot or displeasure to other persons (negative)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the act of exposing tock with the indication of the port after the verbal dispute constituted an obscene act

[1] The "obscenity act" under Article 245 of the Criminal Code 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. The crime does not require subjective sexual objective such as sexual humiliation and satisfaction, and it is sufficient if there is a perception of the meaning of sexual intercourse.

[2] Article 1 subparag. 41 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that "any person who embarrasses or disrests other persons by excessively exposing his body or exposing his body, wearing any part of his body, or exposing any part of his body at the place to be hidden" shall be punished. In light of the specific circumstances, such as the time and place of exposure, exposure, exposure method and degree, exposure motive and circumstance, even if the act of exposing the body was committed, it cannot be deemed as an act of obscenity under Article 1 subparag. 41 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, if it is deemed that the act does not merely cause sexual humiliation and harm the normal sexual humiliation by stimulating the general sexual desire, but merely causes a embarras or disconsure to other persons, it does not constitute an act of obscenity under Article 245 of the Criminal Act.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the act of exposing tboard with the indication of the port after the verbal dispute constituted an obscene act

[1] Article 245 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 245 of the Criminal Act, Article 1 subparagraph 41 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act / [3] Article 245 of the Criminal Act, Article 1 subparagraph 41 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4372 decided Dec. 22, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 402)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003No1524 delivered on October 9, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant, within the ordinary point of business management around March 5, 2003, around 23:20 on the part of the non-indicted 1 located in the Dong-dong, Daejeon, the defendant, when the non-indicted 2 parked in front of the above upper point, and the non-indicted 1 said that the non-indicted 1 said that "if he drinked, he was drinking, he was drinking with the excreta" and said that he again said that he had the above upper point, he had the victim non-indicted 3 (the non-indicted 3 (the 23 years old), who was the father of the non-indicted 1, who was reported to have the above upper point, she had knee and panty, had the kne, and had the mick, and had the mick, "nicking in the inner port", and publicly obscenityly obscenityd the mar.

The court below found the defendant's act that the defendant returned Nonindicted 3's report to knee and panty kne, and knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kne, and that the defendant continued his act more than one minute until her knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kn. The court below found the defendant guilty of the defendant's act that is obscene against the concept of sexual humiliation by undermining ordinary sexual humiliation, and that the defendant's exposure to the defendant's knee and sexual organ was an obscene act that causes harm to others' normal sexual humiliation, and furthermore, even if the defendant's act was open to many and unspecified within the scope of the defendant's knee knee ke ke ke ke ke e.

2. The judgment of this Court

The term "obscenity" under Article 245 of the Criminal Act refers to an ordinary person's sexual humiliation by stimulating the ordinary person's sexual desire, causing sexual humiliation, or impairing normal sexual humiliation, and the crime is not established with subjective sexual objective, such as sexual humiliation and satisfaction, and it is sufficient if there is a perception of the meaning of obscenity (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4372, Dec. 22, 200). However, Article 1 subparag. 41 of the Minor Offenses Punishment Act provides that the act of disclosure and punishment is not limited to disclosure of the general person and the degree of sexual humiliation, and it is not limited to disclosure or punishment of other persons, in light of the following: (a) the act of disclosure and punishment of other persons under Article 1 subparag. 41 of the Criminal Act, even if it is deemed that the act of disclosure and punishment is not limited to exposure to the general person, and it is not limited to disclosure or punishment of other persons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, when Nonindicted 2's parking conflicts with Nonindicted 1 due to his own Dong, the defendant stated that "I see that I am "I am about if I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about to am about I am about I am about I am about for I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about we am.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's act of exposing her her tock constitutes an obscene act, and that at the time there was a perception that the defendant was an obscene act detrimental to another person's normal sense of sexual shame, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the obscene act of public performance and the intentional act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)