The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not contain any indecent act by force, such as sparing the victimized person behind him/her, drinking his/her chest, etc., and even if so, the Defendant does not do so.

Even if the Defendant became aware of the victim in 2012 and became aware of the victim, and the victim did not feel a sense of sexual humiliation, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of forced indecent conduct. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts.

2. The crime of indecent act by force of the judgment of this court includes not only cases where the other party commits an indecent act after making it difficult to resist by means of assault or intimidation but also cases where the body of the person who commits the indecent act is regarded as an indecent act. In this case, the assault is not necessarily required to suppress the other party’s will.

An indecent act refers to an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes an indecent act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the perpetrator and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, the surroundings’s objective situation, and the sexual moral sense in the age (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, Sept. 10, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fact that the victim satises the victim’s chest as stated in the facts charged and satise the victim’s chest by hand is recognized.

However, on the other hand, the Defendant’s decision that the victim of ordinary child was called “L”, and the police officer called the instant call architecture according to the report 112 on the day of the instant case. The victim, who refused to provide a police officer’s assistance, showed an attitude to refuse to make a statement itself (the 10th page of the evidence record), and was written by her husband on the same day.