A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 merely committed an misunderstanding of facts, but did not commit the instant crime, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s indecent act committed against the Defendant on April 201 and the firstman on May 2010, 201, reliance on the victim’s statement without credibility, and convicted Defendant 1 of the indecent act committed against the Defendant. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. On August 2010, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of indecent act and the facts charged of indecent act on or around June 201, 201, by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, since the sentencing has been affected due to such misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor changed the facts charged from the trial to “act as if the defendant acted in a manner that would be necessary as a marina” in paragraph (4) of the facts charged. As to the facts charged, the crime name “violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc. against Disabled Persons) or the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc. against Disabled Persons)” (Article 932 of the former Act) or Article 6 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 932 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 10258)” (Article 102), and the facts charged are as follows: (a) at the Escopic broadcasting room of the Escopic city located in Kimpo-si, Kim Jong-si, the defendant entirely trusted the defendant by his reliance relation, and (b) the victim took advantage of the victim’s intellectual disability, and (c) the victim made the victim kne and kne.