强制猥亵罪是在刑事司法实践中多发且常伴有争议的犯罪之一。猥亵行为是强制猥亵罪构成要件的核心组成部分，其中，对于一些典型的猥亵行为较好界定，但是对于一些随着时代产生的非典型猥亵行为的定性则存在极大争议。正是“猥亵”这一概念的抽象游移产生了司法实践中的诸多难题。

目前猥亵行为定性的难题主要体现为以下几方面：首先，无论是在现实生活还是在网络空间，“猥亵”一词的内涵和外延总是在动态变化中，要深刻把握猥亵的定义，一方面，需要明确猥亵行为所侵害的法益是单一的还是多重的；另一方面，需要界定猥亵行为人是否需要具有满足性欲的主观目的。其次，我国对猥亵行为采取二元制立法体系，但是在司法实践中，经常将各种猥亵行为笼统地认定为刑法上的猥亵，而没有对猥亵一般违法行为与刑事犯罪行为作出合理的界分，在罪与非罪的界定上常常含糊不清。本文通过两个类案不同判的案例，对两个问题进行探讨，第一，“强制”要件该如何认定；第二，“当众”要件这一加重情节被转化成入罪情节是否合理。最后，强制猥亵罪作为独立的罪名，在实践中却常常与其他罪名相混淆，从而导致区分此罪与彼罪时存在障碍。例如，强奸案件中的强制猥亵行为是否应当被强奸行为所吸收，以及强制猥亵行为与强制侮辱行为应该如何区分。

上述问题在司法实践中争议不断，导致同案不同判的现象时有发生。本文立足时代变化，针对上述问题展开论述，以期能够为解决司法实务中存在的相关问题提供参考。首先，在对猥亵行为的深度理解上，应该坚持平等原则，尽量摒弃性的羞耻心或者是男女性别之差带来的影响，对猥亵行为所侵害的法益坚持单一性的理解，重点考量猥亵行为是否侵害了他人性的自主权。另一方面，根据罪刑法定原则，在刑法并未对猥亵犯罪需要具有“性倾向”作出规定的情况下，应该坚持客观主义的立场，对猥亵行为做“去倾向化”的理解。其次，对猥亵行为的理解和定性不能仅停留在刑法层面或行政法层面，而应该整体地看待猥亵行为的行刑衔接问题，尽量避免立法“碎片化”所带来的司法实践困境。从当前来看，需要明确对猥亵的一般违法行为与刑事犯罪行为的界分，缓解司法实践的困境；从长远来看，需要加强立法，把原属于违法范围内但应属犯罪的行为纳入刑法调整的范围，弥补行刑衔接的不畅之处。最后，为扫清此罪与彼罪区分所存在的障碍，应该按照同一理论理解和适用强制猥亵行为与强制侮辱行为，从而保障司法实践的统一性，实现真正的同案同判。另一方面，应根据罪责刑相适应原则，对强奸案件中出现的强制猥亵行为做独立判断，为司法实践提供更多的理论路径。

Indecent assault is one of the most frequent and often controversial crimes in criminal judicial practice. Act of indecency is the core component of indecent assault, in which, some typical indecent acts are relatively easy to define, but there is great controversy over the characterization of some atypical indecent acts that have emerged over time. It is the abstract wandering of the concept of “indecent act” that creates many difficulties in judicial practice.

The current difficulties in characterizing act of indecency are mainly reflected in the following aspects: Firstly, whether in real life or cyberspace, the connotation and extension of the term “indecent assault” are always in dynamic change. To deeply grasp the definition of act of indecency, on the one hand, it is necessary to clarify whether the legal interests infringed upon by the act of indecency are single or multiple. On the other hand, it is necessary to define whether the perpetrator of an indecent act needs to have the subjective purpose of satisfying sexual desire. Secondly, China has adopted a binary legislative system for act of indecency. However, in judicial practice, various kinds of acts of indecency are often generally recognized as indecent assault in criminal law, without making a reasonable demarcation between general illegal acts of indecency and criminal offenses, and the distinction between crimes and non-crimes is often ambiguous. This article discusses two issues through two similar cases with different judgments: First, how to recognize the “coercion” element. Second, whether it is reasonable for the aggravating circumstance of the “publicity” element to be converted into an incriminating circumstance. Finally, the crime of indecent assault, as an independent crime, is often confused with other crimes in practice, which leads to obstacles in distinguishing this crime from others. For example, whether indecent assault in rape cases should be absorbed by rape, and how to distinguish indecent assault from forced insult.

The above-mentioned issues are constantly controversial in judicial practice, leading to the phenomenon of different judgments for similar cases from time to time. Based on the changes of the times, this article discusses the above issues, hoping to provide a reference for solving the relevant problems in judicial practice. First of all, in terms of an in-depth understanding of indecent act, we should adhere to the principle of equality, try to abandon the sexual shame or the impact of the gender differences between men and women as far as possible, adhere to a single understanding of the legal interests infringed by indecent act, and focus on whether the indecent act violates the will of others and infringes on their sexual autonomy. On the other hand, according to the principle of legality of crime and punishment, when the criminal law does not stipulate that “sexual orientation” is required for indecent assault, we should adhere to an objectivist stance and “de-orientate” the understanding of indecent assault. Secondly, the understanding and characterization of act of indecency should not be confined to the level of criminal law or administrative law, but should look at the connection between administrative law and criminal law for indecent act as a whole, so as to avoid the dilemma of judicial practice brought about by the “fragmentation” of legislation. From the current point of view, it is necessary to clarify the distinction between general illegal acts of indecent act and criminal act of indecent assault, to alleviate the difficulties of judicial practice. In the long run, legislation needs to be strengthened to bring acts that were originally illegal but should be criminalized into the scope of criminal law to make up for the shortcomings in the connection between administrative law and criminal law. Finally, in order to clear up the obstacles that exist in distinguishing one crime from another, indecent assault and forced insult should be understood and applied in accordance with the same theory, so as to guarantee the unity of judicial practice and realize the true same sentence for the same crime. Furthermore, independent judgment should be made on the act of indecent assault in rape cases based on the principle of appropriateness of crime and punishment, so as to provide more theoretical paths for judicial practice.