A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

According to the witness E’s testimony, the only witness E’s testimony, the defendant cannot be seen to have sexual intercourse. Thus, without changing the indictment, to the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant’s exercise of his right of defense, the following facts charged are organized and the facts of the crime are

On July 1, 2014, around 15:30 on July 1, 2014, the Defendant openly committed obscene acts, such as taking the sexual organ out from the street, in which people in front of the “D cafeteria” located in the Gunposi C are frequently viewed as victims E (V, 68 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Determination as to whether each legal statement of the witness E and F (which does not seem to be disadvantageous to the defendant, and is not disadvantageous to the defendant, and there is no special reason to make unfavorable statements, and credibility is recognized in light of legal attitude, etc.) was obscene

1. According to each of the above evidence, the following facts can be found: (a) the defendant puts his hand into the h of the military air in the military air between the "Dcafeteria" and the "G restaurant" and puts his sexual organ out of twice; (b) E saw the Defendant's sexual organ out of it; and (c) the defendant's body out of it in the "D restaurant"; and (d) I, at the "D restaurant," talks with E that "the defendant has a sexual organ," and that "I," which was "I, in the "D restaurant, is shaken the Defendant's sexual organ," respectively, can be found.

In the above facts of recognition, ① the Defendant’s act appears not to be an infinite behavior after the conclusion of the lawsuit, as alleged by the Defendant (the witness E stated that “the Defendant sent the Defendant from the time the Defendant was posted in the direction of the D cafeteria, and the Defendant did not see the defense”) and ② was drunk merely.

The act of taking a sexual organ out of clothes is not deemed to have been done on the ground that it is difficult to see or see, but it is difficult to find any motive or reason to explain it in addition to that of doing such act in a sexual sense.