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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the president of the "CPC room" who works for the victim B (n, 19 years of age) as such employee.

On October 26, 2017, from around 00:30 to around 08:00 on the same day, the Defendant exceeded, by hand, the victim’s crepit E room in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, by using the cresh in which the victim was locked under the influence of alcohol, and exceeded, and exceeded, by inserting his hand into the victim’s titts.

Accordingly, the defendant committed indecent acts using the victim's resistance impossibility condition.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. On-site report (F dialogue attached) (of note, the Defendant exceeded the victim’s clothes to satisfy his sexual desire, not the Defendant exceeded the victim’s clothes, but exceeded the victim’s breath to make the victim’s pulmon unstable, so as to make the victim easily able to do so by not occur even if the victim’s breath is difficult, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute an indecent act because the breath has already been deprived of her string.

The argument is asserted.

An indecent act means an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an act constitutes an act ought to be carefully decided by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the actor and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific circumstances leading to the act, the surrounding objective situation, and the sexual moral sense in the age (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.). Moreover, it does not require a subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy sexual humiliation as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). In such a case, it is objectively deemed that a woman’s sexual humiliation is out of ordinary sexual humiliation by male and boom, and that a woman’s sexual humiliation is objectively made.