2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that, in full view of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to completely eliminate the reasonable doubt that the Defendant sent the sexual organ to see the defense, and on the premise of such facts, even if the act of taking the sexual organ out from a mountain path through which many people pass, is an emergency and imprudent behavior from an ordinary person’s perspective, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an act contrary to the concept of sexual humiliation by impairing the normal sexual humiliation and impairing the sexual humiliation.

The judgment below

A thorough examination of the reasoning in light of the aforementioned evidence reveals that the defendant's act falls under the degree of embarrasses or displeasure (the excessive exposure of sexual organs, etc. falling under Article 3 (1) 33 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act) in light of the specific circumstances, such as the time and place of exposure to sexual organ, the part and method of exposure, and the details and time of exposure, etc. of the defendant's act is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.