The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which rejected the statements made by the victim with credibility of the facts, and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of indecent act among the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who is an unfair adult male in sentencing, has a high possibility of criticism by assaulting the victim who is merely 16 years of age, and has a previous conviction in the same kind, the lower court’s punishment (amount to KRW 700,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of indecent act by force against a mistake of fact includes not only cases where the other party commits an indecent act after making it difficult to resist by means of assault or intimidation but also cases where the body of the person committing the indecent act is deemed to be an indecent act. In this case, the assault is not necessarily necessary to suppress the other party’s will.

An indecent act means an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and goes against the good sexual moral sense, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an act constitutes an indecent act ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to such act, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual morality in the age (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, Sept. 10, 2015). In addition, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged solely based on the victim’s statement, it requires high probative value so as to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. Determination whether such probative value exists should take into account not only the reasonableness, consistency, and objective reasonableness of the statement itself, but also personal elements such as the victim’s sexual character (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1613, May 10, 2013).