1. In a case where the argument on the part of the indictment for changes in indictment is acknowledged as a minor criminal facts included in the criminal facts charged within the scope consistent with the facts charged, and where it is deemed that there is no possibility of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense in light of the progress of trial, the court may, ex officio, recognize the facts charged different from those stated in the indictment

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, on May 10, 1996, explained the summary of the facts charged in the instant case that “The Defendant, at the end of May 15, 2012, knew that the victim, who was a first-class disabled person (the victim, who was 39 years old, was disabled, was forced to be exempted from and obscencing the victim’s will as a disabled person, and rape once, with the victim’s desire to know that there was insufficient decentralization on the judgment such as recognition ability, memory, etc., and that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily recognize the Defendant to have the victim committed indecent act by force on the grounds that there was a serious difficulty in inducing the victim into the victim and forced the victim to leave the victim’s body as the victim’s injury by force on the part of the Defendant’s injury by force on the part of the victim by force on the part of the victim.”