《刑法修正案（十一）》对刑法第237条第三款的猥亵儿童罪进行了修改，完善了猥亵儿童罪的加重情节和对应的法定刑幅度，更有利于发挥刑法惩治犯罪的作用。实务中，对“在公共场所当众猥亵儿童”加重犯的适用存在认定不统一、量刑不均衡等问题，归根结底是因为对该项加重犯的保护法益定位不明确、构成要件含义理解不清晰，亟需对此进行研究。本文围绕“保护法益定位”“构成要件分析”的路径展开，对猥亵儿童罪的基本犯及“在公共场所当众猥亵儿童”加重犯的保护法益予以明确，对“在公共场所当众猥亵儿童”加重犯的“公共场所”“当众”“情节恶劣”构成要件的内涵进行了阐释，并确立了规范的认定标准。对“在公共场所当众猥亵儿童”加重犯保护法益的定位是首先要明确的问题。本文采取双重法益观进行分析，猥亵儿童罪的保护法益是儿童性权利的不可侵犯权，而在公共场所猥亵儿童加重犯的保护法益还包括公众的道德感情。对在公共场所当众猥亵儿童加重犯的构成要件应予以规范认定。“公共场所”属于规范性构成要件要素，是指面向社会公众开放的，供不特定或多数人活动的空间，在判断时应当符合公共性、开放性、功能性等标准。网络中具有公开性、同时性、涉众性、现实性的空间也属于公共场所，此种解释是合目的的扩大解释，顺应时代发展的趋势，不违反文义解释和体系解释，不会超出国民的预测可能性。“当众”指的是在明知或应知有被不特定或多数人感知的可能性而实施某种行为的状态，只要出现了被害人和行为人之外的第三人就成立当众，不以三人以上为必要，在判断时需要满足被他人发现的（推定）可能性和行为被感知的可能性等标准。“公共场所”和“当众”要件都具有独立价值，应同时具备才构成“在公共场所当众猥亵”。成立“在公共场所当众猥亵”要求行为人至少具有间接故意，对“场所公开性”的判断优先于“行为公然性”的判断。“情节恶劣的”是限制性规定，应当符合“情节恶劣的”才能成立本项加重犯。对“情节恶劣的”要件的判断应遵循一定原则，结合猥亵地点、猥亵手段、猥亵者和被猥亵对象的身份、行为后果、再犯可能性等进行综合认定。

The "Criminal Law Amendment (XI)" has amended the clause regarding the crime of child molestation in paragraph 3 of Article 237 of the Criminal Law, including the improvement of the aggravated circumstances and the corresponding statutory penalty range of the crime, which could enhance the role that Criminal Law played in punishing crimes. In practice, there are problems with the application of the aggravated offense of "child molesting in public at a place", such as recognition inconsistency and sentencing imbalance, which could be attributed to unclarified positioning and the unspecific knowledge of constitutive elements of this aggravated offense. Therefore, this issue is of significant research value. This paper focuses on the positioning of the protection of legal interests and analysis of constitutive elements. The protection of the legal interests of the basic offense and the aggravated offense in public at a public space have been clarified. Moreover, the connotation of the constitutive elements including "in public" and "at a public place" has been expounded with normative identification establishedThe positioning of the legal benefit of the aggravated offense of “child molestation in public at a public place” is the primary problem to be clarified. In this paper, double legal benefit theory is adopted for analysis. The legal benefit of child molestation is an inviolability right of children sexual rights, while that of the aggravated offense of child molestation in public also involves public moral feelings. It is necessary to normatively identify the constitutive elements of the aggravated offense of child molestation in public at a public place. "Public places" is a normative constitutive element, which refers to the spaces open to the public for unspecific or multiple person activities. When being judged, "Public places" should satisfy the standards of publicness, openness, functionality, etc. Notably, Cyberspaces that exhibit the traits of publicity, simultaneity, involvement, and reality should also be considered as “public places”. This interpretation is a purposeful expansion that follows the trend of social development, while does not violate textual interpretation or systemic interpretation and falls within the realm of foreseeable possibilities of citizens. "In public" refers to the state in which a behavior is carried out with the knowledge or the awareness that it is likely to be perceived by unspecific or multiple individuals. As long as a third party other than the victim and the perpetrator appears, it constitutes the state of “in public”, without the necessity of being more than three people. When being judged, it is supposed to meet the standards such as the possibility of being observed or presumed by others and the possibility of the behavior being perceived. Both "public places" and "in public" have independent value. "Molestation in public at a public place" is constituted only when the two elements are met simultaneously. It requires the perpetrator to be at least indirectly intentional, and the judgement of "openness of the place" takes priority over the judgement of "publicity of the behavior." The aggravated offense of this crime is constituted when the "aggravated circumstance" is met, which is a restrictive provision. The judgement of the "aggravated circumstance" should follow certain principles by comprehensively considering the location, the means, the perpetrator and the victim of molestation, the consequences of the behavior, the possibility of recidivism, etc.