The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (hereinafter “the toilet of this case”) is a toilet with a digital number key attached to a female toilet on the 1st floor of the commercial building of the Class C, and the use by the general public is restricted. As such, the Defendant’s act of entering the toilet of this case alone can be deemed as having intruded the structure against the manager’s will.

B. According to the statements, field photographs, etc. by women and police officers who were in the toilet of this case and dispatched to the scene, it can be recognized that the Defendant intruded into the toilet of this case in order to steals women who are sufficiently aware that the toilet of this case is women's toilet and steals women who are viewed as us.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged for the following reasons.

1) Although the act of entering a structure is contrary to the explicit or presumed intent of the manager of the structure, the crime of intrusion on the structure is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the toilet of this case is a toilet located in the commercial building, which was installed for the use of the shop owners and customers, but it was actually possible for the general public as the entrance was not closed at all times. Thus, in order to establish the crime of intrusion on the structure, it should be proven that the Defendant went to the toilet of this case for the purpose of “the purpose of stealing women’s urging” against the will of the manager of the structure, such as the facts charged, should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation.

2) However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are as follows.