All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of awareness that the Defendant was a female toilet due to misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant entered the urgical partitions of the above toilets, and did not have any purpose to satisfy the sexual desire, and did not have any intention to detain the above toilets.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (two years of suspension of execution, community service, and order to attend a lecture in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant intruded into toilets for the purpose of meeting the sexual desire and detained the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

According to the main CCTV images in which the case occurred, the Defendant entered the male toilet immediately before the instant case.

Aftermath 30 minutes, there are space between male toilets and female toilets for about 30 minutes, and the defendant entered female toilets, and the defendant was able to take female toilets several times before entering female toilets, or she was faced with women from female toilets.

In light of the fact that the Defendant used a male toilet prior to entering a female toilet, brought a female toilet prior to entering a female toilet, and went against women from a female toilet, it seems that the Defendant recognized that the place in which the Defendant entered was a female toilet.

B. The male-gu E of the victim was placed in the direction of the common partitions in which the victim would not have returned from the toilet, and the defendant who was at the time with the victim was placed in the common partitions.