first touched her. It could be argued the present case fits within any of the three rules set out in King. The act of lying on top of the victim could be viewed as a single act by which both physical restraint and criminal sexual abuse were accomplished, and therefore this case would fit under rule (1). The act of lying on top of the victim could be viewed as the act by which the physical restraint was accomplished, and the fondling of the victim’s breasts and kissing her mouth and neck could be viewed as the acts by which the criminal sexual abuse was accomplished, thereby placing this case within rule (2). If the physical restraint here were held not to be a lesser included offense of criminal sexual abuse (the question what constitutes a lesser in 1029, 554 N.E.2d 556, 564 (<HOLDING>)) — unless based on separate acts. Similarly,
holding criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint included offenses of aggravated crimi nal sexual assault and vacating convictions and sentences on former offenses holding in a multiplepunishment case that aggravated sexual assault focuses on prohibited conduct holding that allegations of sexual assault by an employee of the church fell within coverage for sexual misconduct holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault holding unlawful restraint an included offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault so conviction on the former was vacated