The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal reasoning is that a female toilet of “C building” that the Defendant invadedd by the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (hereinafter “instant toilet”) is installed so that an unspecified number of customers can be used, and constitutes “public toilets” under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the primary charge, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the number of forfeiture evidence 1, the observation of protection, and the community service time of 160 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the instant toilets constituted “public toilets, etc.” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Act on Public Toilets, etc., and determined that there was no proof of the primary facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the definition of “public toilets, etc.” as prescribed by the Act on Public Toilets, etc., (i) the location of the toilets of this case is inside the Gwangju Mine District C building, (ii) the purpose of installing the toilets of this case is to provide convenience to customers using the above buildings; and (iii) the toilets of this case are allowed to use the above toilets only through the corridor inside the above building; and (iv) the person who wishes to use the toilets of this case must enter the above building, cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes ( sexual purpose intrusion places).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.