The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the consistent statements of the victim of mistake of facts and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant sent words that may cause sexual humiliation and aversion to the victim as stated in the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant’s assertion that the text sent to a third party was sent to the injured party, the crime of obscenity using a communications medium under Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “the Sexual Crimes Act”) should be interpreted not only to the extent that the other party to the transmission of obscene text is not limited to the injured party, but also to

Therefore, the defendant's act, which appears to have the purpose of inducing or satisfying sexual desire, constitutes the crime of obscenity using communications media under the Sexual Exposure Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial for determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if the interests of the defendant cannot be determined by the interests of the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). The lower court acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime, based on its stated reasoning.

As the court below properly states.