The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal refers to the defendant's sexual indecent act while the victim does not have sexually committed an indecent act on the bus, although the victim was aware of his/her sexual indecent act on the bus, and he/she took a bath to himself/herself against him/herself and made the statement as stated in the facts charged in this case against him/her. Thus, the above defendant's act is justified and thus illegal.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. As such, if a certain act is deemed to be an act of defense that can be done under social ethics or social norms in the present situation because its motive or purpose is just and reasonable, and its means and method are reasonable, and infringement legal interests are balanced, it shall be deemed to be an act that does not violate the social rules.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11204, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s expression of the above content constitutes an affirmative act that expresses an abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that may undermine the social assessment of the victim beyond a passive defensive act, even if the Defendant asserted that such expression was made by the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's insult cannot be viewed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.