beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant only caused a cell phone posted at the back part of the victim’s front part of the back part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the lower part of the appeal, but did not see that the Defendant’s act was an indecent act; and (b) even though the Defendant did not intend to commit an indecent act, the Defendant did not intend to commit an indecent act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. “Indecent act” in relevant legal principles means an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is objectively contrary to good sexual morality, 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 offender and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of the act, objective situation surrounding the act, and the sexual moral sense in that time.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 Decided April 26, 2002, etc.). Moreover, there is no subjective motive or objective to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856 Decided September 26, 2013, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the victim appeared in the investigative agency and the court of the court below to prevent the victim from her, and the victim her her her mar was slick.
At the time, the victim's cell phone was put in the back part of the back part of the victim's cell phone, and the net part of the defendant's hand in contact with the mobile phone is not memory, but the defendant was shot.