Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the program) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Intrusion into public places for sexual purposes) and the crime of intrusion on the structure of this case, although there are substantive concurrences, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty as to

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the term “public toilets, etc.” (the toilets stipulated in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) meeting the requirements of Article 12 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 15156, Dec. 12, 2017; hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) is intended or premised on cases where the toilets are installed as independent buildings, as well as cases where the toilets are already installed within a certain scale of buildings or facilities, and even without the provision of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes Act, the crime of intrusion is established in cases where the intrusion goes against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674, Mar. 28, 1997). The aforementioned provision of sexual assault constitutes a crime of intrusion upon public toilets or public toilets installed for the purpose of causing intrusion to another person’s sexual desire, etc. among these unlawful purposes.