beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant thought that the victim consented to physical contact with the victim at the time of the instant case in light of the existing relationship with the victim, and therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit an indecent act, as well as the content of physical contact and it is objectively difficult to view the defendant as an indecent act, because the defendant had been fit for the victim's sexual intercourse.
Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below that the defendant committed indecent act by force
2. Determination
A. The crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established in cases where an indecent act is committed by deceptive means or by force against a person under his/her protection and supervision due to his/her duties, employment and other relation. In this context, the term “compact” is a sufficient force to suppress the victim’s free will, and is neither tangible nor intangible nor intangible. Therefore, not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status or right can be used, and accordingly, the victim’s free will is not required to be threatened.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8135 Decided November 29, 2007). Meanwhile, “Indecent act” refers to an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively and goes against good sexual morality, and thus infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes an act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, surrounding objective situation, and sexual moral sense of that age.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 Decided April 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2860 Decided August 23, 2002, etc.) B.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim is the defendant from two months before the crime of this case.