The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant had committed an obscene act as described in this part of the facts charged, although it could be found that the defendant had committed a patently obscene act.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of three million won, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, the fact that the Defendant committed a public performance and obscene act as stated in this part of the facts charged can be acknowledged.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is justified.

① At around 08:52 on July 5, 2018, E, a witness, reported the fact that he had observed obscene acts, such as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as “first act”), and reported the facts and the number of vehicles involved in obscene acts (hereinafter referred to as “second act”) as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below at around 08:45 on July 24, 2018. On the same day, E, a witness, at the police station, stated that he was the same person who committed the above acts, the photograph of the Defendant’s driver’s license was the person who committed the above acts after having taken the photograph of the Defendant, and stated to the same effect in the court below.

The view of the witness of the above act was 05:30 hours after the first day of July in Korea, and the view of the witness of the above act was 3 hours after the first day of the day, and in fact when the witness of the second act was revealed to the extent that there was no difficulty in confirming the inside of the vehicle with the windows opened, the distance between the first and second acts is 19 days, and the interval between the first and the second acts is not 19 days. Since the witness was present and made a statement at the investigative agency immediately after the second act, the witness's statement of the witness E is memory that all the persons who committed the above act is the defendant.