logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.10.23 2014노880
강제추행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had the intent to commit an indecent act against the victim E; (b) the victim sits above the Defendant’s hand; (c) the victim did not have committed an indecent act by force by force by deceiving the victim’s her am, her am, and by hand; and (d) the victim’s am, who was seated by the victim, did not constitute “Assault” if the victim’s am, which was her am, was under the victim’s am, was under the victim’s hands. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Assault” in the crime of indecent act by force, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Assault” in the crime of indecent act by force.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only cases of indecent act after making it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation against the other party, but also cases where the assault itself is deemed an indecent act. In such a case, insofar as the assault does not necessarily require the degree of suppressing the other party’s intent and the exercise of tangible force against the other party’s will, it does not necessarily mean that the assault is against the other party’s will.

An indecent act objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is an act contrary to good sexual moral sense, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act shall be determined with careful consideration of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to such act, circumstances leading to such act, specific form of act, objective situation in the surroundings, sexual morality, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3893, 2012Do14, 2012Do83 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.)

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant worked as a temporary worker at the same workplace as the victim, but is well aware of the fact before the occurrence of the instant case.

arrow