The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is consistent with the statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant, who was flicked twice flick, immediately flicked flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick fl

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court determined: (1) during the process of requesting the refund of goods purchased before the Defendant visited D Customer Service Center at the time of the instant case, the Defendant, as an employee, had a procedural issue; (2) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant’s loss, which caused the refund receipt at the time, puts sold and resisted E; (d) the Defendant’s loss, which caused the receipt in the process, contacted E; and (e) the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court, talked with E in the process; (c) even if the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court, talked with E in the process of giving lessons to E; and (d) the Defendant did not have any sexual speech and behavior; and (d) the time of the instant case was at least three p.m. on Sundays, the customer service center of Mart was in charge of booming; and (e) there were many employees handling the affairs; and (e) the Defendant’s indecent act or indecent act to receive refund to E even around the Defendant.