The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is clear that the Defendant’s instant act constituted “obscenity act” in light of the time and place during which the Defendant committed the instant act, and the part and method of exposure. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the purport that the previous facts charged by the court below acquitted the defendant as the primary charges, and that the name of the crime is "violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", "Article 3 (1) 33 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", and "the charges were added to the purport that "the defendant openly exposed his sexual organ to another person by exposing his sexual organ so that he dissatising and dissatising him," and this court has changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it, and the judgment of the court below is found guilty of the conjunctive charges by the confession and reinforcement evidence of the defendant, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles on the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

3. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor’s argument regarding the primary facts charged, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s instant act constituted “an act of causing sexual humiliation and causing harm to another person by openly exposing his sexual organ at an open space,” and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes “an obscene act” that may cause sexual humiliation and harm a normal sense of sexual shame by stimulateing the general public’s sexual desire, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

In light of the records, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.