The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, it is difficult to evaluate the Defendant’s act as an indecent act in the crime of indecent act by compulsion, in view of the following: (a) although the Defendant spreaded a fixed amount to the victim; (b) the Defendant committed a crime with a heavy number of people around the road; (c) the Defendant committed a crime with a view to a mere resistance and a prolonged danger; and (d) the Defendant does not immediately deviate from the victim’s right behind and right away; and (d) the victim was aware of a fixed amount of the victim’s late smelling.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in understanding the legal principles and sentenced the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (limited to four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of lecture attendance order for sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion, “indecent act” means an act objectively causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and contrary to the good sexual moral sense, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, the surrounding objective situation, and the sexual moral sense of that time

In addition, there is no subjective motive or purpose to stimulate sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856 Decided September 26, 2013). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act of taking the sperm toward the victim and taking the victim’s the sperm into consideration is objectively causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public, and is in good moral sense.