The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) did not properly respond to the victim's question in the course of communicating with the victim E, and the defendant made a speech that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion to the victim by using the expression "humping" before and after such expression was made, and thus, the defendant was intended to arouse or satisfy his or another person's sexual desire.

In addition, in light of the expressions used by the defendant, it is deemed that the defendant had the awareness and intent that the defendant would have reached the victim that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion, but the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as failing to decide on it.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to see that the Defendant had a purpose to arouse or satisfy his or another person’s sexual desire, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the lower court’s above determination is justifiable.

This is the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below by integrating the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the defendant has used the expression “hing” to refer to E during a telephone conversation from the beginning to the beginning, so it cannot be readily concluded that he used the above expression in order to be subject to sexual traffic women, and the expression “hing” may stimulate the sexual desire of ordinary people by social norms.

or to the other party.