Attorney V, W, C, X, D

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is necessary to prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that (1) a doctor's act conducted in the course of the medical treatment and treatment for the body of the patient may be misunderstood or criticized due to an indecent act according to the patient's awareness, and thus, it may be evaluated as an indecent act committed under the intention to infringe the patient's sexual freedom beyond the scope of the medical treatment, and if the prosecutor's evidence does not reach the sufficient degree to have conviction as to that point, it is sufficient to have the prosecutor's conviction as to that point.

Then, based on the premise that the overall treatment process should be determined with the interest of the defendant, even if there is a certain degree, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, determined that the defendant's act in the treatment process against the victims constitutes an indecent act that infringes upon the victim's sexual self-determination right, or that each of the facts charged in this case based on the premise that the defendant committed such an act under the criminal intent of such indecent act is difficult to be proven without reasonable doubt.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the said measures by the lower court are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jong-il