Even if the defendant's act does not constitute a forced indecent act, it is likely that it constitutes an indecent act by force or indecent act in a densely concentrated public place.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether it constitutes the elements of crime by mistake or coercion or reduction of the facts.

On March 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act by force against a disabled person, who was physically disabled, by spreading the buckbbbbbbs in the victim’s seated 2nd degree of intellectual disability (n, 23 years old); and (b) committing an indecent act against a disabled person, who had a mental disability, at the neighboring E resting place located in Daegu-si, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, Daegu-si; (c) the victim’s 2nd degree of disability (n, 23 years old); and

Judgment

With respect to coercionful conduct by persons with disabilities: The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial on whether indecent conduct by assault or intimidation constitutes an indecent conduct by a public prosecutor is the burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of a person guilty is based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). Compulsory indecent conduct is established by assault or intimidation, and such assault or intimidation is to be difficult to resist.

In addition, whether the assault, etc. was likely to make it difficult to resist the victim's resistance is not only the content and degree of the assault, etc., but also the reasons why the force was exercised, and the victim.