[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] "Blatant Indecent Act" vs "Just Public Urination"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] At 2 a.m. on November 21 last year, three women in their early 20s, including Ms. A, shouted at a man outside the window of a building in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The man was exposing himself and engaging in obscene acts while looking at them.

The man only pulled up his pants and left the scene after Ms. A and others called 112. "It was humiliating and disgusting. It was unpleasant." Ms. A testified this to the responding police officers.

The man was soon caught. He was Mr. B, a 35-year-old ordinary office worker. He was later prosecuted for 'public indecency.'

Defendant Claimed 'Public Urination,' Not Obscene Acts

Mr. B's first trial was held in April before Judge Yoodonggyun of the 13th Criminal Division at the Seoul Central District Court. He denied the charges in court. He claimed that he was just urinating in public because he felt the urge while walking after drinking, and did not commit any obscene acts. He also argued that the reason he opened his pants and moved a specific body part with his hand was "because urine was not coming out, so he was trying to squeeze it out."

Under the current Minor Offenses Act Article 3, "Anyone who urinates or defecates in places where many people pass, such as streets or parks, and does not clean up, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 100,000 won, detention, or a minor fine." In contrast, Criminal Act Article 245 (Public Indecency) states, "Anyone who publicly commits an obscene act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, a fine not exceeding 5 million won, detention, or a minor fine."

After about two months of deliberation, the court found Mr. B guilty of public indecency.

Court: "Not behind a wall or under a tree, but deliberately..."

The court did not accept Mr. B's claim of 'public urination.' It found that there was no urgency requiring Mr. B to urinate at the scene instead of using the building's restroom. Mr. B's statement that "(he intended to urinate in public but) urine did not actually come out, so he did not urinate" was also a basis for this judgment.

Furthermore, the court determined that Mr. B had awareness and intent regarding the 'public nature' (a state recognizable by unspecified or many people). The court pointed out, "There were sufficient places nearby the scene, such as behind walls or under trees, where he could have urinated without exposure," and "It is hard to accept that he deliberately tried to urinate in a place easily visible to the public." Investigations showed that Mr. B was standing in a brightly lit building area where he could be clearly seen.

The court sentenced Mr. B to a fine of 3 million won, stating it was "a crime that harms the public interest of sound sexual morals." He was also ordered to complete 40 hours of a sexual violence treatment program. Mr. B, who maintained his innocence, did not appeal, and this ruling became final.