The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (fact-finding) asserts that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was breathe and entered a female toilet as a male toilet, and that he did not intrude with the intent to satisfy the sexual desire.

However, in light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Defendant used a studio in female toilets, the Defendant used a male toilet in the same building twice prior to the instant case, and the Defendant was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and the F stated that the Defendant was in a report of having changed E, F, E, and N entering and leaving a female toilet, and that there was a sound that the Defendant was a female toilet even if he did not take out, and even if he did not take out, it was sufficiently known that there was a person in a female toilet. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s above assertion was not reliable and it was difficult to obtain it by social norms.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. Examining the records in light of the records, it is recognized that the court below’s determination that the facts charged in the instant case are difficult to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

This is more so in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below by integrating the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

(1) "F" is to keep a visible line in the direction of a rectangular line from the side of the entrance inside the day on which the defendant was the defendant.

From the partitions where the defendant was in the same direction, it is possible to see the entry side of the defendant.