The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant committed a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by taking a sexual organ out in multiple ways as stated in the facts charged, the above act did not meet the performance requirement, which is a constituent element of the crime of obscenity in a public performance and did not have the awareness of performance to the Defendant at the time of the above act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of the public performance obscenity is erroneous by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's sentencing (including fine of 5,00,000, and completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance trial, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining the grounds for judgment at the bottom of “a summary of evidence”. The court of first instance convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the above judgment by the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance. According to the evidence above, the defendant's act of self-defense is recognized as "the fact that the defendant committed an act of self-defense in a state where many people can know any specific or many people," so the above judgment by the court of first instance is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant is not only guilty, but also has the same criminal records twice.