1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act by compulsion

In addition, the argument that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant's act was based on appeal or that the court below was not subject to judgment ex officio.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

Article 51 of the Criminal Act and matters concerning whether the circumstances before the opening are obvious belongs to the court's discretion regarding the determination of punishment widely. Thus, in principle, in accordance with Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court of final appeal may not decide whether the lower court's determination as to the suspension of sentence and whether the circumstances before the opening are obvious, and it does not change even if the lower court clearly erred (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003).

Therefore, the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal merely criticizes the lower judgment on the ground that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik,

Justices Kim Jae-in