강제추행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In other words, misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant sparly tried to compromise with the victim rather than for sexual purposes, and there was no purpose of forced indecent act.
However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 40 million, and the amount of KRW 40,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, there should be no subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, arouse, and satisfy sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). As stated in the facts charged, the act of using the victim’s own arms in both arms may be sufficiently assessed as an indecent act in that it causes sexual humiliation or aversion from an objective and ordinary point of view, and it was sufficiently known that the above act of Defendant India could constitute an indecent act.
I seem to appear.
Therefore, even if the defendant's above behavior was not a sexual purpose but a settlement.
Even if the defendant's act was not an indecent act, or there was no intention to commit an indecent act against the defendant.
According to the circumstances such as the relationship between the victim who was a convenience store and the defendant who was employed by the victim, and the fact that the defendant was notified of dismissal by the victim at the time, the victim cannot be deemed to have consented to the defendant's dismissal with the intention of reconciliation. Thus, the act recorded in the facts charged in this case is deemed to be an indecent act sufficiently forced.
Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.
(b).