beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged despite the fact that the defendant did not have any intention to force indecent act by force, the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The crime of indecent act by force includes not only an indecent act after the other party makes it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation, but also so-called indecent act in which the assault itself is recognized as an indecent act.
In particular, in the case of indecent acts, violence at the same time as the other party's indecent act is not necessarily required to suppress the other party's will, and if there is the exercise of tangible force against the other party's will, regardless of its power's exaggeration, it is a consistent position of judicial precedents.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the act of using her her m/hem or chest on the part of the victim’s clothes (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2860 Decided August 23, 2002) is an indecent act by exercising a tangible force against the victim’s will against the victim’s intent (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do52 Decided April 16, 2004), and that the act of a teacher her face while keeping the female face into the female’s face and using her ear is an indecent act by taking place (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8767 Decided November 12, 2015).
Furthermore, an indecent act objectively causes 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 it constitutes an indecent act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to such act, circumstances leading to such act, specific form of conduct, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual moral sense in the age.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 Delivered on April 26, 2002