The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) As to the obscene content of a public performance, the Defendant did not engage in obscenity as indicated in the instant facts charged and did not appear at around 22:00 on August 16, 2016 when the Defendant witness AL (hereinafter “the witness”) witnessed the Defendant.

A witness witness is a person other than the defendant, who is one of the lurihos in height 174 cm.

A person who, around August 17, 2016, was found to have been committing obscene acts in the vicinity of a public performance around 02:00, around August 17, 2016, which was the time when the instant public performance was committed. A witness was also a criminal of obscene acts in the instant public performance, and at the time, the Defendant was in a very distant place from his place, and thus was not the criminal of obscene acts in the instant

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the performance and obscenity was erroneous.

2) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), the AI, as stated in this part of the facts charged, is a person who is not a bona fide victim, but a bona fide victim, and was sentenced to a punishment in the first instance trial when refusing to enforce compulsory execution based on the judgment.

As the defendant continued to face a drinking face from AI one time, it is difficult for him to continue to do so, and only he has pushed off his chest with his hand so that he can fall off from the defendant.

This is not a passive act of attack but a passive act of resistance, and thus there is no illegality as it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of probation, four years of probation, observation of protection, community service order 180 hours, 40 hours of attendance order for treatment of sexual assault, and 40 hours of attendance order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's person.