A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the victim’s answer or encouragement against the store employee, the Defendant merely caused the victim’s her mared once with the victim’s mared. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to constitute a forced indecent act because it does not go against the social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The indecent act against the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles is objectively an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, the relationship before the perpetrator and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, the objective situation surrounding the act, and the sexual morality of the times (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417, Apr. 26, 2002). Moreover, the Defendant did not have any subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy sexual humiliation as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6791, Jan. 13, 206).