The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the consistent statements of the grounds of appeal D and H, in order to deem that the defendant was able to take her fingers or her fingers on the chests of D and H, and that there was no intention to commit an indecent act on the chests of D, 14 years old, with the act of taking her fingers on the chests of D, the ground corresponding to the doctor’s treatment should be recognized. There are no such circumstances.

In light of the fact that the defendant did another act to son on the chest part of H's chest while the defendant did not commit an indecent act D, it should be deemed that the victim H had the intention to commit an indecent act.

The investigation of this case began in the process of counseling D with the teachers.

In full view of these facts, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had intention, although it could sufficiently recognize the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. “Indecent act” refers to an act that objectively causes the general and average person in the same position as the victim to feel a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion and goes against good sexual morality, and thus infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes an act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act committed against the victim, objective situation surrounding the victim, and sexual morality concept of the time.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13716, Feb. 25, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2012Do936, Mar. 29, 2012). Evidence that criminal facts exist in criminal proceedings is presented by a prosecutor, and even if the defendant’s appeal is unreasonable and is the same as the defendant’s appeal is unreasonable, it is so disadvantageous to the defendant.