A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake did not have committed an indecent act against the victim. Even if the Defendant was aware of the victim’s sexual intercourse, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without the intention to commit an indecent act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The Defendant with mental disorder was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 5 million and order to complete a program) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s above sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below about the contents of the damage and the situation at the time of damage, ② the victim was present at the scene of the case, E, and F made a statement that the defendant was unable to witness the victim's sexual organ itself. The defendant did not witness the victim's sexual organ during the conversation, and it seems naturally unsatisfying. ③ The above E and F stated consistently that the victim was on the spot immediately after the defendant's indecent act, and the victim appeared to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the case, ④ The victim's expression of daily meals and conversations with the victim was proved to the effect that the victim was unable to witness the victim's sexual organ, ⑤ the victim's economic ability to respond immediately after the indecent act was committed, but ⑤ the victim's economic ability to respond to the victim's sexual intercourse.