The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to facilitate departure by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) opened the crosswalk of the first floor of Jeju International Airport in front of the red signal; (b) opened a place to start the traffic order C; (c) laid down the name tag attached to the victim’s chest in hand to check the victim’s name in order to point out the Defendant’s unauthorized crossing without permission; and (d) opened the victim’s chest in the process of checking the victim’s face as the Defendant was old and the name recorded in the name tag was not well visible; and (e) checked and checking the victim’s chest.

The Defendant’s act not only does not constitute “indecent act” but also did not have the intent to commit indecent act against the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of one million won, 16 hours’ order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, an indecent act is objectively an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual moral sense, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to such act, specific form of act, and the surrounding objective circumstances and sexual moral sense, etc. Furthermore, it does not require any subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, arouse, and satisfy sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013).