Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Molestation in a crowded public place completed without actual shame
Supreme Court, June 25, 2020, 2015Do7102 (judgment)
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(공중밀집장소에서의추행)(예비적죄명:강제추행미수)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, does the offence of molestation in a crowded public place reach completion although the victim did not actually feel sexual shame or disgust?
Holding
Yes. Under Article 11 of the former Act, 'molestation' means an act that, by the standard of an ordinary person, objectively causes sexual shame or disgust, runs counter to decent sexual moral concepts and infringes the victim's sexual self-determination. It is enough for the offence to be complete that the actor carries out such an act against the target; the target need not actually feel sexual shame or disgust.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 죄가 기수에 이르기 위해서는 객관적으로 일반인에게 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키게 할 만한 행위로서 선량한 성적 도덕관념에 반하는 행위를 행위자가 대상자를 상대로 실행하는 것으로 충분하고, 행위자의 행위로 말미암아 대상자가 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 반드시 실제로 느껴야 하는 것은 아니라는 이유로 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
it is sufficient that the perpetrator carry out, against the target person, conduct that would objectively cause an ordinary person to feel sexual shame or disgust and that is contrary to sound sexual morality, and the determination of the court below, which found the charged facts guilty on the ground that it is not necessarily required that the target person actually feel sexual shame or disgust as a result of the perpetrator's conduct, is justifiable,
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이에 해당하는지는 피해자의 성별, 연령, 행위자와 피해자의 관계, 그 행위에 이르게 된 경위, 구체적 행위 양태, 주위의 객관적 상황과 그 시대의 성적 도덕관념 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 신중히 결정해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a case falls within the foregoing must be carefully determined by comprehensively considering the victim's gender, age, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the circumstances leading to the conduct, the specific manner of the conduct, the surrounding objective situation, and the sexual morality of the times.
Factors
- 일반인을 기준으로 객관적으로 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키게 하고
- 선량한 성적 도덕관념에 반하는 행위로서
- 피해자의 성적 자기결정권을 침해하는 것을 말한다
- 행위자가 대상자를 상대로 실행하는 것으로 충분하고
- 피해자의 성별, 연령, 행위자와 피해자의 관계, 그 행위에 이르게 된 경위, 구체적 행위 양태, 주위의 객관적 상황과 그 시대의 성적 도덕관념 등을 종합적으로 고려하여
Unofficial English translation
• objectively causes an ordinary person to feel sexual shame or disgust as measured by the standard of an ordinary person, and
• as conduct contrary to sound sexual morality
• means infringing upon the victim's right to sexual self-determination
• it is sufficient that the perpetrator carry out the conduct against the target person, and
• the victim's gender, age, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the circumstances leading to the conduct, the specific manner of the conduct, the surrounding objective situation, and the sexual morality of the times, in a comprehensive consideration,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 2. 23. 선고 2011도17441 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17441 decided February 23, 2012.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2012. 2. 23. 선고 2011도17441 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a touch inside a crowded train is capable of an innocent explanation, what shows that the actor carried out an act objectively contrary to decent sexual moral concepts against the target?
A later decision that alters the meaning of 'molestation' or the factors to be weighed would require this entry to be read again. The Act has since been amended by Act No. 17264 of 19 May 2020, so the penalty range applied here belongs to the former version; a case falling under the amended Article 11 must be read against that text.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary marks the standard as comprehensive assessment, while the independent marks it as setting out requirements, because the Court both lists the elements and directs a holistic weighing of circumstances.
위 죄가 기수에 이르기 위해서는 객관적으로 일반인에게 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키게 할 만한 행위로서 선량한 성적 도덕관념에 반하는 행위를 행위자가 대상자를 상대로 실행하는 것으로 충분하고, 행위자의 행위로 말미암아 대상자가 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 반드시 실제로 느껴야 하는 것은 아니라는 이유Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 24 April 2015 (2014No4413), found the principal charge proven: the defendant pressed himself against A's back inside a subway train, bent his knees, and attached his genitals to A's buttocks and pushed forward. It held that for the offence of molestation in a crowded public place to be complete, it is enough that the actor carries out an act which objectively causes sexual shame or disgust to an ordinary person and runs counter to decent sexual moral concepts, against the target, and that the target need not actually feel such shame or disgust. The alternative charge was attempt at forcible molestation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It set out the legislative purpose of Article 11, which addresses molestation carried out other than by force in situations where the victim's express and active resistance or escape is hard, and confirmed the meaning of 'molestation' it had given in Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17441. Reading the appellate reasons against that rule and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not misread the law on molestation or departed from the bounds of free evaluation, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An act that does not objectively cause sexual shame or disgust to an ordinary person, or does not run counter to decent sexual moral concepts, so that it is not 'molestation' at all.
- An act in a place other than a means of public transport, a performance or rally venue, or another place where the public is crowded, which Article 11 does not cover.
- A case in which the victim's sex and age, the relationship with the actor, the circumstances leading to the act, its concrete form, the objective surroundings or the sexual moral concepts of the time take the act outside the meaning of 'molestation' on a careful weighing.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the statutory setting first: confirm that the place was a means of public transport or another place where the public is crowded, since Article 11 applies only there. Then match each act to the objective character the Court required, and gather what bears on the factors it listed, since the weighing is done case by case. The decision is silent on proof, so the record of how the acts inside the train were established remains decisive.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제11조에서 ‘공중밀집장소에서의 추행’을 처벌하는 취지 및 위 규정에서 정한 ‘추행’의 의미와 판단 기준 [2] 피고인이 지하철 내에서 갑의 등 뒤에 밀착하여 무릎을 굽힌 후 성기를 갑의 엉덩이 부분에 붙이고 앞으로 내미는 등 갑을 추행하였다고 하여 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 위반(공중밀집장소에서의 추행)의 주위적 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 위 죄가 기수에 이르기 위하여 행위자의 행위로 말미암아 대상자가 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 반드시 실제로 느껴야 하는 것은 아니라는 이유로 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purpose of punishing 'indecent acts in a place open to the public' under Article 11 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the meaning and criteria for determining 'indecent act' as provided in the foregoing provision [2] A case in which the defendant, in a subway car, was charged under the primary count of the charged facts with a violation of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent acts in a place open to the public), on the ground that he committed an indecent act against A by pressing himself against A's back inside the subway, bending his knees, attaching his genitals to A's buttocks, and thrusting forward, and in which the charged facts were found guilty on the ground that, for the said offense to reach consummation, it is not necessarily required that the target person actually feel sexual shame or disgust as a result of the perpetrator's conduct
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(2020. 5. 19. 법률 제17264호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조는 ‘대중교통수단, 공연·집회 장소, 그 밖에 공중이 밀집하는 장소에서 사람을 추행한 사람’을 1년 이하의 징역 또는 300만 원 이하의 벌금에 처하도록 하고 있다. 입법 취지는 도시화된 현대사회에서 다중이 출입하는 공공연한 장소에서 추행 발생의 개연성과 함께 그에 대한 처벌의 필요성이 높아진 반면, 피해자와 접근이 용이하고 추행장소가 공개되어 있는 등의 사정으로 피해자의 명시적·적극적인 저항이나 회피가 어려운 상황을 이용하여 유형력을 행사하는 것 이외의 방법으로 이루어지는 추행행위로 말미암아 형법 등 다른 법률에 따른 처벌이 여의치 않은 상황에 대처하기 위한 것이다. 여기에서 ‘추행’이란 일반인을 기준으로 객관적으로 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키게 하고 선량한 성적 도덕관념에 반하는 행위로서 피해자의 성적 자기결정권을 침해하는 것을 말한다. 이에 해당하는지는 피해자의 성별, 연령, 행위자와 피해자의 관계, 그 행위에 이르게 된 경위, 구체적 행위 양태, 주위의 객관적 상황과 그 시대의 성적 도덕관념 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 신중히 결정해야 한다. [2] 피고인이 지하철 내에서 갑의 등 뒤에 밀착하여 무릎을 굽힌 후 성기를 갑의 엉덩이 부분에 붙이고 앞으로 내미는 등 갑을 추행하였다고 하여 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(2020. 5. 19. 법률 제17264호로 개정되기 전의 것) 위반(공중밀집장소에서의 추행)의 주위적 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 위 죄가 기수에 이르기 위해서는 객관적으로 일반인에게 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 일으키게 할 만한 행위로서 선량한 성적 도덕관념에 반하는 행위를 행위자가 대상자를 상대로 실행하는 것으로 충분하고, 행위자의 행위로 말미암아 대상자가 성적 수치심이나 혐오감을 반드시 실제로 느껴야 하는 것은 아니라는 이유로 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(2020. 5. 19. 법률 제17264호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 [2] 구 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법(2020. 5. 19. 법률 제17264호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger