Gunsan attorney recommendation case | Assisting a client accused of indecent act by compulsion to obtain a no-prosecution decision

The client, who resides in Gunsan, is a second-year high school student who was suddenly accused of 🔗forcible indecent act (sexual molestation) by a fellow student with whom he had usually been on close terms.

The complainant claims that the client, without consent, put his hand inside her pants and touched her buttocks, and touched her chest, committing an indecent act.

The client argues that no such thing ever happened and requested help from a Gunsan attorney.

Forcible indecent act refers to committing, against another person's will, an indecent act capable of causing sexual humiliation through means such as assault or intimidation.

In the past, a forcible indecent act required the involvement of conduct such as assault or intimidation, but precedent has emerged holding that committing an indecent act against the other person's will also constitutes a forcible indecent act, so any sexual molestation against a person's will may be regarded as a forcible indecent act.

Under the Criminal Act, a forcible indecent act may be punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 15 million won.

As a defense strategy for the client who sought a Gunsan attorney, the attorney pointed to the lack of credibility in the statements.

The complainant has reversed her account of the location and the nature of the alleged indecent act.

The complainant was confused about the date and time of the visit to the room cafe, and she reversed her statements, first stating that her genitals had been touched and then stating that her breasts and buttocks had been touched.

The Gunsan attorney argued that the complainant had reversed her statements and raised doubts about their credibility.

It is true that the client, who came through a Gunsan attorney referral, went to a room cafe together with the complainant.

However, they did not go alone but visited together with six friends.

In addition, the client and the complainant were not close at all, and the day of the incident was the first time they spent time together.

In fact, the client had not even saved the complainant's phone number, and they had never exchanged messages on any other social media platform either.

It is true that there was physical contact while playing a game with friends at that room cafe in order to carry out a penalty.

However, it was a game conducted in a setting where all the friends were present together, and the contact was by no means against anyone's consent.

The client, who came through a Gunsan attorney referral, argued that all of the friends present participated in the game together, and that the complainant also took part in the game with enjoyment.

The attorney submitted, as evidence, the statements of the friends who accompanied the client who sought a Gunsan attorney to the room cafe.

The friends stated that they had never seen the client commit any indecent act against the complainant.

They said that the only time the client and the complainant had been alone together was when the other friends went out to the lobby to get snacks, and that even then it was a very brief period of time.