A. According to the victim F of this case's erroneous determination of facts, although it is obvious that the defendant committed indecent acts by compulsion and rape as shown in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the circumstances that the victim is a intellectual disabled person, and thus there is a certain limit to the body or consistency of the statement, and by omitting the credibility of the statement without disregarding the circumstances such as the victim's de facto absence of actual experience, and there is no specific motive to mislead the defendant, thereby rejecting the credibility of the statement. The court below acquitted all of the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape of Persons with Disabilities) and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by compulsion of Persons with Disabilities). The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The judgment below dismissing the request for attachment order since the defendant's improper dismissal of the attachment order risks recommitting the attachment order.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial is based on the prosecutor’s burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). 2) In this case, not on whether the defendant, who is 71 years old at the time of the instant case, was an apartment custodian or security guard, but on the other hand, was a sexual crime against a person with a physical or mental disability.

3. The above legal principles and the disabled.