The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (the part of the judgment below’s acquittal and the misapprehension of the legal principle) is as follows: in the case of obscene crimes that have been repeatedly committed near time space and repeatedly, objective evidence of the crime before and after, and the crime itself before and after, may also serve as evidence to reinforce the confessions; therefore, the part of the judgment below’s conviction, the report processing case list of 112, which is the evidence of the evidence thereof, and CCTV video recording, etc., may be evidence to reinforce the confessions of the defendant

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on August 2, 2016 and August 3, 2016, of the obscene content of a public performance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence for the reinforcement of confession.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant, at the police court, the prosecutor’s office, and the lower court’s court, led to the confession of the obscene facts of the instant facts charged on August 2, 2016 and August 3, 2016 among the instant facts charged, but there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, and thus, the confession constitutes evidence of a kind unfavorable to the Defendant, and thus, cannot be considered as evidence of guilt. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no evidence of a crime.

Since substantive concurrent crimes are crimes, there is a need to reinforce evidence of confessions as to each crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008). The guilty portion of the judgment below and the evidence related thereto cannot be evidence of reinforcement of the remaining facts charged in relation of substantive concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.