The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) and the fact that families D and D have observed the defendant several times, and around June 1, 201, they reported the defendant's vehicle number to the police by accurately witnessing the defendant's vehicle number, etc., the court below acquitted the defendant about the fact that the defendant had committed an obscene act as described in the facts charged in this case, although it was found that the defendant had committed an obscene act as described in the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 07:15, at the Jung-gu Daejeon apartment parking lot, the Defendant sold goods in a passenger car in order to work for D, a resident of the above apartment; (b) while parking and unloading a freight 1 ton of the EF vehicle owned by the Defendant, the Defendant openly committed an obscene act, i.e., e., e., leaving the vehicle driver’s seat immediately next to the car driver’s seat on which the said D was loaded, and driving the car.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (1) Even after the date and time of committing a crime on which a family member of D and D had appeared several times in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, where the Defendant was living, and found a vehicle number on June 1, 201 and reported to the police and confirmed the number of the vehicles; (2) according to each description of the F Zone Work Site and the status of the receipt and handling of the instant accident, it was confirmed that D’s mar vehicle number was accurately specified and reported to the F Zone Unit around 18:42 on June 1, 201; and thereafter, during the process of investigation into the replacement of the vehicle between D and the Defendant’s family members by summonsing the Defendant and the Defendant’s mar at the time of committing the crime, D and D’s family members were inside and outside the witness of the Defendant, and they were identical to the witness of the Defendant.