logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2019.07.24 2018고정123
공연음란
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. At around 15:20 on May 1, 2018, the Defendant of the public hall was openly obscenity in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Gayang-gun, with multiple unspecified persons, such as the victim C, etc., and with his/her inner booms and clothes, and was sexually obscene acts, such as taking his/her sexual flag into his/her hand and taking it out.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was only fluent with respect to the Defendant’s defense, not obscene acts.

3. Determination

A. Article 245 of the Criminal Act provides that “a person who publicly commits an obscene act” shall be punished as a public performance or obscenity crime.

The term “obscenity act” refers to an act contrary to the concept of sexual morality by stimulating ordinary people’s sexual desire, causing sexual interest and impairing normal sexual humiliation.

The crime is not a subjective objective of sexual intercourse, satisfaction, etc., but a subjective perception of sexual obscenity is sufficient.

However, even if a physical exposure occurred, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the date and time, place, part of the exposure, degree of exposure, and motive and circumstance of exposure, in cases where it is deemed that the act does not merely harm the sexual humiliation and the normal sense of sexual shame by stimulating the general public’s sexual desire, but rather merely constitutes a obscenity act under Article 245 of the Criminal Act, such act cannot be deemed as an obscenity act.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6514 delivered on March 12, 2004).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the Defendant’s act of taking out his/her own sexual organ from a mountain path along which many people pass was an emergency and comfortable behavior from an ordinary point of view.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the defendant committed an obscene act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1. The Defendant from August 2017.

arrow