All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact that, in light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, passengers (victims) board the taxi on the part of the defendant's driver, the external lighting can sufficiently confirm the fact that the defendant has sexual intercourse with his hand, and the fact that there was sufficient possibility that the driver or passenger of other car or night bus operating on the part of the defendant's driver's taxi or the defendant's above act could be seen as having been seen as having been committed on the part of the defendant's vehicle or night bus operating on the part of the defendant's driver's taxi.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the public performance and obscenity among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles.

B. As to the sentence of unfair sentencing (the defendant and the prosecutor) by the court below (the two-month period of suspended sentence, etc.), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is H taxi engineer.

On April 7, 2017, around 02:34, the Defendant: (a) was killed in the back seat of the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul International Cooperative heading office (the age of 27) on the back seat of the taxi; and (b) the Defendant was able to see the passengers who were seated on the back seat because he was not able to be able to see the passengers, but became her hands out of the back seat.

Accordingly, the Defendant publicly committed an obscene act.

B. According to the records, the court below held that the defendant's act place of the defendant in this case was a taxi operated by the defendant, the time of the defendant was 02:30, and the time was 02:30, and the cab was a different from the Gangnambuk. In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act was in a state where many unspecified persons or unspecified persons could recognize it.