The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements by the victim of the grounds of appeal, the defendant and the victim have been drinking two to three times as they are friendly with each other.

In light of the circumstances where the Defendant attempted to make a physical contact several times to the victim, but the victim refused to make an unfavorable appraisal, etc., the Defendant appears to have expressed his/her intent to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact with the victim through the instant text message, and thus, had a purpose to arouse or satisfy the Defendant’s sexual desire by deeming that the Defendant expressed his/her intent to have sexual intercourse with the victim.

It is reasonable to view that the text message sent by the Defendant is also reasonable in light of social norms, and it is reasonable to interpret that the text, such as “mard”, “x”, “com”, and “compact,” in light of the context and circumstances in front and rear, is a sexual relation, and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the text, such as “mard”, “marity,” and it may cause sexual humiliation or aversion. However, the judgment of the court below

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant only sent text messages, such as the instant facts charged, in order to view the Defendant’s sexual humiliation as the victim had a view to inducing or satisfied his/her or D’s sexual humiliation in order to view the Defendant’s sexual humiliation.

It is difficult to see the content of the text message sent by the Defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the content of the text message is a multilateral and specific meaning, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that it causes sexual humiliation or aversion. Accordingly, the Defendant was acquitted on the charges of this case.

B. The judgment of the court below is just when comparing the above judgment of the court below with records.