(영문) 대법원 2008.3.14. 선고 2007도10728 판결

1. The probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of the judge, but it must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be a reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as having probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994; 94Do135, Sept. 13, 1994). The term "reasonable doubt" refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts that are inconsistent with the logical and empirical rules, not with all questions and correspondences, and thus, it should be based on the e.g., this is not a rational doubt that is based on the conceptual or abstract possibility of a witness’s testimony in a criminal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4794, Jul. 24, 197, 197).

In addition, the crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only the case where an indecent act is committed after the other party makes it difficult to resist by means of violence or intimidation, but also the case where the act of assault itself is deemed an indecent act. In this case, an assault does not necessarily require that the degree of suppressing the other party’s intent is limited, but also has a tangible force contrary to the other party’s intent, regardless of its force’s strength (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3182, Feb. 28, 1992; 94Do630, Aug. 23, 1994); and an indecent act is objectively an act contrary to the other party’s sexual moral sense, which causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public, and thus infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully considered in light of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victim, specific circumstances leading to such act, specific circumstances leading to such act, and objective circumstances surrounding the society’s sexual morality (see, 197Do.

The court below found the victim's statement credibility and found the victim guilty of each crime committed each indecent act on the part of the victim C's buckbucks, which caused the victim's failure to sleep due to the victim's invasion on the home building, and caused the victim C's bucks to resist. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's measures are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant had a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case but did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or omission of judgment in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.