A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts was merely about the victim’s attempt to uninfluence a certificate by the method of prosecution or law, and did not have the intention to commit indecent act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 40 hours, the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 40 hours’ program program program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term “comforcing” means an act objectively causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and contrary to good sexual morality, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the perpetrator and the injured person, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, and the surrounding objective situation, sexual moral sense, etc.

Furthermore, it does not require a subjective motive or objective to stimulate sexual humiliation as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following are considered: (a) the victim’s intent, gender, age and relationship of the Defendant and the victim; (b) the form of specific act; and (c) the victim’s attitude toward the Defendant’s act, even though the victim expressed his/her intent of refusal, the Defendant expressed his/her intent of refusal three times more with the victim at the same time under the influence of the victim.

The recognition was recognized.

In a case where a person objectively causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and thus constitutes “comforcing,” and in light of the motive of the instant indecent act and the circumstances at the time, etc., the Defendant himself/herself is the victim.