Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as a detailed unexplosion, detailed stimulative disorder, pulmonary mental disorder, etc.

On June 3, 2019, at around 16:30, the Defendant indicted the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant committed the act of self-defense in a way that scambs the drinking scam and scams in hand,” in relation to the Defendant’s specific form of action, such as Chigh School A High School A, which was located in Osan-si B, and D (25 years old) where pedestrians could see it, and in a way that scams the drinking scamscams, the Defendant committed the act of self-defense in a way that scams the drinking scams in hand.” However, there is no particular evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant

On the other hand, even if this part of the facts charged is corrected ex officio as indicated in its holding, the summary of the evidence as stated below is an obscene act in the crime of obscenity and cannot be said to have any disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense. Thus, ex officio correction is made in its holding.

Patently commits obscene acts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. On-site photographs [referred to as “obscenity” under Article 245 of the Criminal Act refers to an act contrary to the concept of sexual morality by inducing an ordinary person’s sexual humiliation and impairing normal sexual humiliation by stimulating the ordinary person’s sexual desire, and such act does not necessarily require describing a sexual act or expressing his sexual intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1264, Jan. 13, 2006). In addition, the above crime is not established under subjective objective, but it is sufficient if there is a perception of the meaning of the obscenity of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4372, Dec. 22, 2000).