Facts
The case concerns an individual, [H.], who was convicted of unnatural acts in 1951. During his probation period, he attempted to corrupt two minors, [K.] and [Z.], to commit unnatural acts. [H.] approached [K.] and [Z.] separately and offered them money and cigarettes in exchange for sexual favors. [K.] and [Z.] both refused H.'s advances.
The public prosecutor's office of the canton of Aargau prosecuted [H.] for attempted corruption of minors to commit unnatural acts. The district court of Muri acquitted [H.], but the cantonal court of Aargau overturned this judgment and referred the case back to the district court for a new judgment.
The public prosecutor's office of the canton of Aargau filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that [H.] had indeed attempted to corrupt the minors and that his behavior constituted a preparatory act to corruption.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether [H.] had indeed attempted to corrupt the minors to commit unnatural acts. It considered that the attempt to corrupt is a preparatory act to corruption and that [H.] had indeed committed this act by offering money and cigarettes to the minors in exchange for sexual favors.
The Federal Court also considered that the question of whether [H.] was aware of the minors' age was important, but that it could not be determined in the context of the present proceedings. It therefore referred the case back to the cantonal court to rule on this question.
The Federal Court also considered…