|
[1] The test of unlawfulness of a certain sexual expression behavior and whether it is clear by rule of thumb that one whose personal right was violated by other's sexual expression behavior suffers from mental pain (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that the words and acts of the perpetrator who controls and supervises the victim as the responsible person of a company division can be viewed as unlawful acts which invaded the victim's personal right and it is clear that the victim suffered mental pain due to the above acts by rule of thumb
[3] Whether it is an unlawful act to force someone to drink who does not drink at all or drink just a little bit due to physical or religious reasons or personal circumstance (affirmative) and whether a person has a duty to coordinate the atmosphere so that the other party's personal autonomy is not invaded when a responsible person of a company division arranges a dinner party related to work (affirmative)
[4] The case holding that it is unlawful for the responsible person for company division where the victim belongs to force the victim to drink since her personal right was invaded
[5] The requirements for the events for employees as related to job duties in the company or for unity of employees to be scheduled outside of working hours
[6] The case holding that it is clear by rule of thumb that the victim could not come home until dawn not by her own intention but due to dinner parties held more than 2 times per week by the perpetrator and it is the result forced by the perpetrator's usual words and acts, and because of this, she must have suffered mental pain
|
