The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty (in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) in the judgment of the court below), the defendant has no record of telephone conversations unlike the defendant's vindications, and the defendant was trying to flee in female toilets, and the defendant stated that he was unable to hear any sound, such as physical unloading, during the time when he was in female toilets.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the facts charged that the Defendant invaded on a female toilet with intent to satisfy his/her sexual desire are not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

① According to the witness F’s legal statement, F’s police statement, F’s statement, etc., F’s statement that the Defendant asked the Defendant, coming from female toilets, to put the reason why the Defendant entered female toilets, and that the Defendant entered to find a stop.

The Defendant’s statement is consistent with the purport that “it is only a woman’s toilet to find out a stop because it is not suspended in the male toilet during the process of coming to the investigative agency and the court.”

② Also, according to the examined evidence, female toilets were not suspended at the time, and female toilets were entered by the defendant.