A. 1) In the Defendant’s assertion of the intent to commit an indecent act by compulsion or injury, there was no intent to commit an indecent act by compulsion against the victim, and there was no intent to inflict an injury on the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on criminal intent, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant alleged on the mental or physical disability or mental disability under the influence of alcohol, committed the instant crime under the condition of mental or physical disability.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not deem the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime that was in the state of mental or physical disability, thereby misapprehending the facts concerning mental or physical disability or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no criminal intent of indecent act by compulsion and injury, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the Defendant had a criminal intent of indecent act by compulsion and injury. 2) In the event that the Defendant denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective element should be proven by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts having substantial relation with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts in this case should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of the facts based on an fatal observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006; 2008Do6950, Jan. 30, 2009).