The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is necessary to prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that (1) a doctor's act conducted in the course of the medical examination and treatment for the body of a patient may be misunderstood or criticized due to an indecent act according to the patient's awareness, and thus, it may be evaluated as an indecent act committed under the intent of unrelated treatment or infringing the patient's sexual freedom beyond the scope of treatment. In a case where the prosecutor's proof did not reach the sufficient degree to have conviction in the above point of view, the whole process of the treatment is somewhat uncomfortable.

(2) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the circumstances stated in its holding, constitutes an indecent act that infringes on the victim's sexual self-determination.

(2) Each of the facts charged in this case, based on the premise that the Defendant committed such an act under the criminal intent of such indecent act, is difficult to view that the charges in this case were proven without reasonable doubt.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned measures are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by

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