Series Index
Part 1 | Unpaid Corporate Transactions: Liability Behind the Veil
Part 2 | Trade Name Continuity and the Liability of a Successor
Part 3 | Directors’ Liability for Damages
Part 4 | The Person Behind the Company Name
Part 5 | The Limits of Self-Defense in Assault Cases
Part 6 | Criminal Settlement Money: How Much Is Appropriate?
Part 7 | Can Quasi-Rape Be Established If One Has No Memory After Drinking?
Part 8 | Freelancers and Severance Pay: What Courts Really Examine
Part 9 | Assignment of Receivables for Business Financing
Part 10 | Can You Get Divorced If Your Foreign Spouse Disappears?
Part 11 | Can a Tenant Terminate a Lease if Repairs Are Refused?
Part 12 | Can a Subcontractor Recover Payment if the Main Contractor Disappears?
Part 13 | What You Must Know Before Your First Police Interview
Part 14 | Can a Real Estate Contract in a Land Transaction Permit Zone Be Cancelled Before Government Approval?
Part 15 | Is It Trespass to Enter Another Person's Home by Concealing Criminal Intent?
Part 16 | Impersonating Someone by Creating an Instagram Account Can Also Be a Criminal Offense
Part 17 | When Does an Indecent Act Become a Crime?
By Hong Seung-kwon,
Principal Attorney, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
People sometimes seek legal advice after being accused of a sexual offense for putting an arm around someone’s shoulders on a date or stroking a colleague’s hair at a company dinner. Such cases raise the question of when physical contact constitutes an indecent act by compulsion, commonly referred to as indecent assault.
Article 298 of South Korea’s Criminal Act provides that a person who commits an indecent act against another through violence or intimidation may be punished by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to 15 million won. The wording may suggest that a considerable degree of force is required, and courts interpreted the provision that way for many years. Apart from so-called surprise indecent acts, in which the sexual contact itself constituted the assault, violence or intimidation was generally required to be severe enough to make resistance difficult.
In September 2023, however, the Supreme Court changed this legal standard. The case involved a male cousin who grabbed the victim with both arms, pushed her onto a bed and climbed on top of her. The lower court acquitted him after concluding that the physical force was not sufficient to make resistance difficult, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision.
The Court held that “violence” in an indecent-assault case means the unlawful use of physical force against another person, while “intimidation” means communicating a threat of harm capable of causing fear. No greater degree of force or intimidation is required.
The Supreme Court also said the previous precedent did not correspond with the statutory elements of the offense or with its protected legal interest—the right of every individual to make free and equal decisions concerning sexual autonomy. It held that “violence or intimidation” under Article 298 should be clearly understood in the same sense as those terms are used in the Criminal Act’s general offenses of assault and intimidation. The Court added that a clearer definition was necessary to strengthen legal stability and improve the predictability of judicial decisions as case law and courtroom practice evolved.
The ruling broadened the range of conduct that may constitute an indecent act by compulsion. Subsequent cases have included striking a victim’s buttocks, grabbing a victim’s arm and waist, and pressing against a victim’s buttocks. Nor is there an essential legal distinction based solely on the part of the body that was touched.
Many defendants therefore fail to recognize that their conduct may amount to indecent assault. In some cases, the victim may genuinely have consented, making it difficult to establish the offense. In others, however, an accused person may assume there was consent because the victim went to work as usual the following day or accompanied the accused to a previously scheduled engagement.
A victim’s response can vary according to personality, the relationship with the accused and the circumstances of the incident. The fact that a victim returned to work the next day or went to a previously arranged meeting does not, by itself, establish consent to the contact.
As with many other sexual offenses, indecent-assault cases often lack clear physical evidence. The victim’s account can therefore play a decisive role in determining whether a crime occurred, but this does not mean that an accusation alone automatically results in a conviction. Courts continue to examine rigorously whether the account is consistent with the circumstances before and after the alleged offense.
Anyone involved in such a case, whether as a suspect or a victim, should promptly record the circumstances in as much detail as possible. Relevant evidence—including messages, call records and any available CCTV footage—should also be secured without delay.
About the Author
Attorney Hong Seung-kwon is a lawyer at Law Firm PAN, where he handles a broad range of civil and criminal litigation, with particular focus on emerging legal issues arising in the digital era. His research and practice examine how technological innovation, property rights, and evolving regulatory policies reshape legal principles and market order.
