A. Under the circumstances where the Defendant was locked, the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s her spouse by sparing him and her as his spouse, and had no intention to commit an indecent act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and three years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by using the victim’s state of mental or physical disability or failing to resist as stated in the instant facts charged, and the Defendant’s intent to do so is sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by misunderstanding of facts as

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

In light of the fact that in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the victim consistently stated the facts of injury, such as the facts charged in this case, and that in the court of the court below, E at the time following the victim, the victim stated in the court of the court of the court below that the victim was aware of the victim's victim's body and took the bridge above the body of the victim, the victim and his behaviors notified the defendant of the crime immediately after the case, and there is no specific motive or circumstance to report or make a false statement against the defendant at the first time on the day of the instant case when the victim was at risk of causing the crime of false accusation or perjury, the victim's credibility of the victim's statement is recognized.

At the time of the judgment of the court below, the victims got out of the victim's side by putting the wall in front of the victim, and there seems to have been a space for one person to enter between the victim and the wall.

However, the defendant.