The lower court stated that the part of the Defendant’s case was erroneous and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the acquittal portion of the reasoning (the grounds of not guilty part), but did not explain the reasons in this case, that “it is inappropriate to apply the legal doctrine on indecent act by bad faith in this case.”

In this case similar to this case, the Seoul High Court ruled that punishing an indecent act by using violence or intimidation that would make it difficult for the victim to resist, is because the victim cannot resist substantially against the indecent act that he could have anticipated, and that the legal principle of the indecent act by nature is also applicable to the crime of similar rape (2016No1861). In applying the legal principle of the indecent act by nature to the crime of similar rape for the same reason, the Gwangju High Court held that: (a) in applying the legal principle of the indecent act by nature to the crime of similar rape, the nature of personality is replaced in that it is the same as that where the victim cannot resist any unexpected similar rape, which makes it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist; and (b) so long as a similar rape was committed against the victim’s will, it is not a problem of coercion of the force (2017No2444).

The victim stated that the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter only referred to as the "defendants") made the victim a shot, and then inserted the victim's sexual organ into the victim's resistance even though the defendant tried to put the victim's sexual organ into the victim's anus, the victim stated that "dra" was written and then inserted the victim's sexual organ into the victim's resistance. The victim, who was 15 years old at the time, had a intellectual disability and had a big obstacle to her belief while gathering the words "dump" from the defendant, who was a shoter, who had followed her belief. In the following situation where the victim's sexual organ cannot be identified, the victim expressed that "hump" was humping the pain of the victim's own written resistance.