The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case

A. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the crime of indecent act by compulsion includes not only cases where the other party commits an indecent act after making it difficult to resist by means of assault or intimidation, but also cases where the act of assault itself is deemed as an indecent act. In such a case, the assault in question need not be enough to suppress the other party’s intent.

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 in full view of the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation surrounding the act, sexual morality, etc.

(2) In the event that an indecent act is committed on April 26, 2002, the crime of attempted indecent act by force is established when the indecent act was committed by intentionally committing an indecent act against the other party’s will, i.e., the use of force against the other party’s will and the commission of the indecent act did not reach the result of the indecent act. This legal doctrine likewise applies to the so-called “act of indecent act by force” in which the act of assault itself is recognized as an indecent act.

(2) According to the reasoning of the first instance court and the lower judgment as well as the evidence duly admitted, the following facts can be revealed.

(A) On March 25, 2014, the Defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) found the victim (the 17 years old), who was married from the bus while drinking the mixed person, coming from the bus at the dormitory of the workplace and going off D in the light of light, and followed the victim at a level of 200 meters with wearing a scke.

(B) The Defendant was in a remote place without human resources, and the Defendant accessed the victim at intervals of about 1m and height of both arms.