The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was an obscene act with a public performance and its criminal intent is recognized, and does not constitute an emergency escape, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court, and is merely an error in the determination of the evidence selection and probative value of the lower court, which belongs to the free judgment by the fact-finding court. Moreover, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance, obscenity, and criminal intent of the crime of obscenity as alleged in the grounds of appeal

Meanwhile, among the grounds for appeal, the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles on excessive escape as stipulated in Articles 22(3) and 21(3) of the Criminal Act is not a legitimate appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the Defendant’s assertion that it was based on appeal or that it was not subject to judgment ex officio by the court below is asserted only for the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.