The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the instant indecent act by the Defendant and the requester for attachment order or the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) constituted a typical indecent act against the victim’s will and constitutes a typical indecent act of indecent act by compulsion, the lower court did not recognize the coercive force in the crime of indecent act by compulsion, and recognized this as a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act at Public Smuggling Places), which affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The legislative intent of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts at Open Space) is to cope with the situation in which punishment under other Acts such as the Criminal Act, etc. is not infinite due to the indecent act committed in a way other than exercising force by taking advantage of the situation where it is difficult for the victim to clearly and actively resist or avoid it due to the following reasons: (a) the probability of the occurrence of indecent act at a public place accessible to the general public in urbanized modern society; and (b) the need to punish it; and (c)

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do17441 Decided February 23, 2012). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant found the victim who was seated on the window in the vehicle, which is a place of public smuggling, and was seated next to it, and dumping the victim’s bucks, thereby spreading the victim’s bucks’ attention, and using it by hand.

On the other hand, the victim is also aware of the circumstances that the victim could not avoid this actively due to the characteristics of the public smuggling where it is impossible to freely avoid the seat next to the victim.

As seen above, in the above facts of recognition: