[1] The concept and standard of determining "indecent act" in the crime of indecent act by compulsion

[2] 피고인이 엘리베이터 안에서 피해자를 칼로 위협하는 등의 방법으로 꼼짝하지 못하도록 하여 자신의 실력적인 지배하에 둔 다음 자위행위 모습을 보여준 행위가 강제추행죄의 추행에 해당한다고 본 사례

[1] Article 298 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 298 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 Decided April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1306) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1050 Decided March 13, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2576 Decided September 24, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1805)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Sang-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No1627 decided November 26, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether the crime of indecent act by compulsion constitutes an indecent act in the grounds of appeal

An indecent act refers to 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 indecent act shall be determined with careful consideration of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual moral sense in the era (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.).

이러한 법리에 따라 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원심이, 이 사건 공소사실 중 강제추행과 관련된 부분에 대하여, 판시 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인이 엘리베이터라는 폐쇄된 공간에서 피해자들을 칼로 위협하는 등으로 꼼짝하지 못하도록 자신의 실력적인 지배하에 둔 다음 피해자들에게 성적 수치심과 혐오감을 일으키는 자신의 자위행위 모습을 보여 주고 피해자들로 하여금 이를 외면하거나 피할 수 없게 한 행위는 강제추행죄의 추행에 해당한다고 판단한 제1심판결을 유지한 것은 정당하고, 달리 거기에 강제추행죄의 추행의 개념에 관한 법리오해 등의 잘못이 없다.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance in light of the evidence adopted, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the charges of rape injury on the ground that it is difficult to view that the bodily condition of the above victim's bodily health was changed due to such degree of injury and that it was not an obstacle to the function of life, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the injury of the crime of rape injury.

In addition, in light of all sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s measure that maintained the sentence of the first instance court sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment against the Defendant is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)