The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal doctrine’s relationship with the Defendant and the victim, the background leading to the instant act, specific form of conduct, and objective circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s exercise of the instant tangible power is merely violence against the victim, and cannot be evaluated as an indecent act that infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom or freedom of sexual decision-making.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act in the context of indecent act by compulsion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only cases of indecent act after the other party makes it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation, but also so-called indecent act in which assault itself is recognized as an indecent act.

In particular, in the case of indecent acts, violence at the same time as the other party's indecent act is not necessarily required to suppress the other party's will, and if there is the exercise of tangible force against the other party's will, regardless of its power's exaggeration, it is a consistent position of judicial precedents.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the act of using her her m/hem or chest on the part of the victim’s clothes (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2860 Decided August 23, 2002) is an indecent act by exercising a tangible force against the victim’s will against the victim’s intent (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do52 Decided April 16, 2004), and that the act of a teacher her face while keeping the female face into the female’s face and using her ear is an indecent act by taking place (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8767 Decided November 12, 2015).

Furthermore, the indecent act objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and constitutes an act contrary to good sexual morality, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom.