The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act of having panty only against women or having panty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty spanty is an obscene act contrary to the concept of sexual morality by stimulating ordinary people's sexual desire and impairing normal sexual humiliation, but the court below found the defendant not guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the result.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) insofar as the Defendant was found to have walked at a speed at the front of the panty E in the state of panty, wearing on March 22, 2017, with his panty only, or going up from his panty, thereby cutting off E; (b) on March 27, 2017, with his panty wearing the panty, and he was displayed in front of G with his panty, but the Defendant was found to have not exposed to the sexual organ at the time or engaged in any conduct that could lead to sexual behavior, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act was in contravention of the concept of sexual morality by stimulating the sexual desire of the general public beyond the degree of causing sexual humiliation and impairing the normal sense of sexual humiliation.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

B. Determination of the above deliberation

A. The concept of “obscenity” is highly flexible in line with the changing society and the times. The discussion of obscenity is directly connected with the concept of sexual morality and ethics and cultural sentiment of the general society that has been naturally formed and developed, and is closely related to the right to pursue privacy and happiness and diversity of individuals, and is not an appropriate area for the State’s penal authority to excessively actively intervene (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do101, Sept. 8, 201; 2010Do10171, Sept. 8, 2011).