The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, with the consent of the victim, committed the instant act and did not use force.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to Albusee dementia.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (five years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that, in light of the fact that the victim’s statement is consistent specifically and alternatively, the victim’s age and relation with the Defendant, the victim’s physical condition, the circumstances at the time of the instant crime, and the circumstances in which the victim stated the fact of injury immediately after the crime, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have exercised sufficient power to suppress the victim’s sexual free will.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is a mistake of mistake of facts, as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was suffering from the symptoms of dementia due to Albiat-Cick at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, upon examining the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the crime indicated in the above evidence, the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the symptoms.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

(c)

In light of the contents and nature of the crime of this case, where the defendant had a juvenile under 18 years of age enter his/her residence and committed a similar act, the criminal liability is grave.