[1] The intent of punishing “indecent act at an open space” under Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the meaning of and standard for determining “indecent act” under the above provision

[2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for committing an indecent act against the violation of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act at Public Place) on the ground that he knee, knee, knee, posted his sexual flag to the part of his kne, and committed an indecent act, such as inside the future, the case holding that he guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the act of the perpetrator did not necessarily cause sexual humiliation or aversion in order to reach the age of the crime

[1] Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264 of May 19, 2020) provides that “a person who commits an indecent act against another person in public means of transportation, public performance or assembly, or any other densely concentrated place shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding three million won. The legislative intent of the legislative intent is to cope with a situation in which the victim’s explicit and affirmative resistance or evasion is difficult due to an indecent act committed by any means other than exercising force by using a situation where it is difficult to use the victim’s explicit and affirmative resistance or evasion. The term “indecent act” refers to an act that causes objectively a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion on the basis of ordinary people and goes against good sexual moral norms, and thus infringes on the victim’s sexual self-determination right to sexual self-determination by taking into account the probability of indecent act in public access in urbanized society as well as the probability of the occurrence of sexual harassment in public place.

[2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted as the primary charge of the violation of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264 of May 19, 2020) (in a case where the above crime was committed by committing an indecent act at a public place) on the ground that he knee, knee, knee, posted his sexual flag to the part, and committed an indecent act, such as inside the future, etc., in the subway, the case affirming the judgment below which found him guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the above crime was committed against the subject objectively because it would cause sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public in order to reach the length of the crime, and it is sufficient for the actor to have objectively committed an act contrary to the good sexual moral sense, and that the subject did not necessarily have to feel sexual humiliation or aversion

[1] Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264 of May 19, 2020) / [2] Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264 of May 19, 2020)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17441 Decided February 23, 2012

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Jeong-sung, Attorney Kim Young-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No4413 Decided April 24, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264, May 19, 202; hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) provides that “a person who commits an indecent act against another person in public means of transportation, public performance or assembly, or any other place densely concentrated with the public” shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding three million won. The legislative intent of the Act is to: (a) the probability of an indecent act in public places entering and leaving urbanized society, along with the probability of the occurrence of an indecent act; (b) the need for punishment of the indecent act is high; (c) on the grounds that it is easy to access with the victim; and (d) the indecent act committed by any means other than exercising tangible force by taking advantage of the situation where it is difficult to make the victim’s explicit and positive resistance or aversion; (d) the term “indecent act” refers to an act that objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion on the basis of ordinary people; (d) the term of sexual self-determination of the victim’s; (e.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (Indecent Act at a place of public gathering), which is the primary charge, of the changed facts charged on the ground that the perpetrator’s act objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public in order to reach the conviction, and that it is sufficient for the perpetrator to commit an act contrary to good sexual morality, against the subject, and that the perpetrator’s act does not necessarily cause a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion due to the actor’s act, was committed against the subject.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding indecent act in the crime of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)