(영문) 대법원 2020.6.25.선고 2015도7102 판결

The grounds of appeal (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, it shall be limited to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief) shall be determined.

Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 17264 of May 19, 202; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a person who commits an indecent act in public means of transportation, places of public performance and assembly, or other densely-populated places 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 raise the possibility of indecent act in public places entering and leaving urbanized communities, as well as the need to punish the indecent act. On the other hand, it is necessary to use the victim’s clearly, actively, low access with the victim and place of indecent act in public, and to exercise his or her force by taking advantage of the situation where it is difficult to avoid such indecent act, thereby infringing upon the victim’s sexual morality and sexual self-determination right to sexual humiliation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du1320, Mar. 1, 2012).

The court below found the perpetrator guilty of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (Indecent act at a densely concentrated place), which is the primary charge, among the charges modified for the reason that the perpetrator does not have to feel sexual humiliation or aversion due to the perpetrator's act of causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively, and that the perpetrator committed an act contrary to the good sexual moral sense against the subject. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on indecent act in violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (Indecent act at a densely concentrated place), 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 ground of appeal.

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