The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) is that the Defendant’s act was against the will of the victims; the victims were women aged 14 and 15; the Defendant and the victims were the first time on the day of the instant case; the Defendant’s act was an act irrelevant to the new sale; the motive of the victims’ report cannot affect the establishment of the crime of indecent act; and there is no need to restrict the important acts that infringe on sexual freedom. In light of the above, the Defendant’s act constitutes an indecent act as referred to in the crime of indecent act by compulsion.

2. The indecent act on the market is an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively and goes against good sexual morality, and thus, infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an act constitutes such an act shall be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of the act, objective situation surrounding the act, sexual morality, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 Decided April 26, 2002, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are as follows: (i) the defendant was working in the "D" newet around August 21, 201; (ii) the victim E and F entered the above new unit to purchase the new unit; (iii) the victim E and F orally sent the new unit of the victim E and F to the victim E; and (iv) the victim E and F sent the new unit of the vehicle to the victim E; and (v) the victim E and F purchased new unit of the vehicle thereafter; and (v) the defendant raised the loss to the victim E and F’s shoulder; and (v) the victim E and F took care of the new unit of the vehicle; and (v) the defendant took care of the new unit of the vehicle, who took care of the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son or son’s son’s son.”