The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal entered the family of the victim with the victim, but his/her father and wife did not have sexual intercourse with the wind to open the door of the victim.

The Defendant did not fully recognize that the victim was a dementia patient.

The crime of intrusion upon residence is not established because the victim opened a door and entered the house of the victim and entered the house of the victim with the consent of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

On September 17, 2015, the Defendant was diagnosed as dementia in Albuses Sick in the P Assembly on September 17, 2015.

As such, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged in this case’s assertion of mistake is a person without a certain occupation, and the victim C (V, 86 years old) is a person with a serious disability in symptoms as a dementia patient due to Albuses C’s disease.

On May 2, 2015, around 13:20 to 13:29, the Defendant discovered that the victim was seated in front of the home of the victim located in Ischeon-si D, found him to have singingly imp, led the victim to the said house, led the victim to the said house, led the victim to the said house, and made sexual intercourse once with the victim, taking advantage of the fact that the victim was in a state of difficulty in living with the aged people and difficulty in resisting due to mental disorder caused by dementia.

The Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court asserted in the lower court as follows:

Although the defendant entered the family of the victim with the victim to make a sex relationship with the victim, he/she did not have sexual intercourse with the victim's wife, but did not have sexual intercourse with the wind.

The defendant did not know at all whether the victim had a serious disability as a dementia patient, and thus, he was disabled.