The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding the facts about the portion of the crime) is as follows: (a) the victim D expressed clearly the Defendant’s intent to refuse when the Defendant was faced with the right shoulder; (b) the Defendant made a concrete and consistent statement to the effect that the Defendant was suffering from sexual humiliation by exposing the leg part; and (c) at the time of committing a sexual intercourse with the Defendant; (d) however, at the time of the time indicated in the facts charged against the forced indecent act in this case, there was little time to meet with the Defendant or exchange contact with the Defendant; and (d) thus, physical contact

It cannot be seen on the day of the instant case, and in full view of the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant did not keep the Defendant on the day of the instant case, not on the part of the Defendant, but on the part of many people, left the Defendant in order to care for the Defendant under the influence of alcohol; and (b) the fact that the Defendant did not enter the fact that the Defendant was indecent in the course of preparing the written statement at the investigative agency immediately after the instant case was shocked by the Defendant as the date of assault by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant’s act of taking the shoulder and the leg on the part of the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, constitutes a forced indecent act by causing sexual humiliation or aversion, and infringing upon D’s sexual freedom, and also constitutes an intentional indecent act by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged with forced indecent act of this case by rendering a not-guilty verdict.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that in light of the relationship between the Defendant and D, the developments leading up to, and the conditions before and after, the instant case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of deceiving the parts of the bridge, while communicating with D, constitutes an indecent act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion when objectively viewed from the perspective of ordinary people, and that the Defendant’s intentional indecent act is insufficient.