The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of original trial that “A defendant, even though the defendant had expressed his body without body and her intention of refusal, put his hand in panty to the panty and made a claim immediately that occurs on the panty,” the defendant would have caused a considerable sense of sexual humiliation. The defendant and E appear to have caused a considerable sense of sexual shame. In full view of the following: (a) the defendant's criminal act constitutes an indecent act that not only infringes upon the sexual freedom of E as an exercise of force which was committed against the will of the victim, but also causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the victim; and (b) the defendant and E appear to have caused considerable sense of sexual humiliation to the general public; and (c) the criminal act constitutes an indecent act that can be evaluated as an indecent act in the ordinary position.

On the other hand, E expressed the defendant's intent to refuse the chest immediately after the defendant delivered his body and expressed his intention to refuse the chest, and explicitly stated his intention immediately after the delivery of his body, and therefore the defendant's act constitutes an indecent act due to habitability.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by the defendant's act

For the reason that it cannot be seen that the facts charged in this case were acquitted, thereby misunderstanding facts or committing indecent acts by force, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on indecent acts by force.

2. The lower court determined that there was no assault or intimidation against E in the course of gathering the Defendant’s breath or fluor, and that E was aware that the Defendant committed an indecent act in order for a considerable period of time, while recognizing that he committed an indecent act for a considerable amount of time, he did not raise any explicit objection against the Defendant’s act to the extent that the Defendant’s act was carried out in order for a considerable period of time.