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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, around 08:00 on April 25, 2018, talked about the C’s rest room in which the Defendant, located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, was able to look at the victim D (22 years old) and TV (22 years old).

In my own hand, the victim's buckbucks did not commit indecent acts by making it possible for the victim to do so.

2. At around 12:00 on the same day, the Defendant committed an indecent act at the kitchen located in the above kitchen, with the victim who was well aware of her lux in order to be sleeped, by his own hand, her rancel was committed several times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, F, G, and H;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The victim D’s refluent photo (the victim’s physical contact itself is recognized, but the defendant’s act cannot be evaluated as an indecent act, and the defendant did not have an intent to commit an indecent act. The indecent act means an act that objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and goes against good sexual morality, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an indecent act constitutes 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 the act, surrounding objective situation, and the sexual moral sense of the times (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, it does not require any subjective motive or purpose to stimulate sexual humiliation as a subjective constituent element necessary for establishing the crime of indecent act by compulsion, and even if the victim uses it in light of the aforementioned legal principles, such as whether the victim was sexually ill and not (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sep. 26, 26, 2013).