The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the defendant 1) on August 2019, the defendant kisked or kids down the chest above the victim's clothes with the consent of the victim in a parking lot or orchard for the first time or orchard.

However, the defendant did not receive the victim from the above parking lot, did not induce the victim to the above orchard, and did not immediately leave or join the chest by getting out of the victim's side.

2) The Defendant appears to the purport that the Defendant, while working as a public official in the K office, did not know that the victim was a mentally disabled person with severe disabilities for about 15 days, and did not know that he/she was a mentally disabled person for whom he/she had been aware of the fact that he/she was a mentally disabled person, only another crime (indecent act under the Criminal Act) rather than a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts committed by force against disability) is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part and instead, the lower court, under the title of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”, and explained in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its decision. In so determining, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent act committed by a disabled person) on the ground that it was sufficiently recognized that the victimized person committed an indecent act by taking advantage of such a state, knowing that it was difficult for him to resist or resist due

2) Determination A of this Court) The statement made by an investigative agency by the victimized child of sexual indecent conduct in the relevant legal doctrine was submitted as evidence, and its credibility.