Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On July 11, 2018, between 11:20 and 11:50, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s bank services for about 30 minutes by force, such as intending to take a hump, i.e., “Isson bank staff, 28 years of age,” and seeing that the victim D (the male, 28 years of age) who was an employee of the bank, who consulted with the other customers, was sexualized with him during the consultation, and she was sexualized with him/her.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (referring to the inspection and attachment of CCTV in aC bank);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act constituted a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, since the defendant's act was merely somewhat high in the process of protesting sexual harassment against the defendant at the time of sexual harassment.

2. “Act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, in order to constitute a justifiable act, a certain act must meet the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of means or method of the act, balance between the protected legal interest and the infringed legal interest, urgency and other means or method other than the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9828, Apr. 23, 2015). This Court legitimately adopted it.