Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order; 1) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are only the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the first instance court found the Defendant guilty, although there was no indecent act or sexual intercourse with the victim. 2) The sentence imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (five years of suspended sentence for imprisonment with labor for three years) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant is too unfased and unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued the same purport in the first instance trial, and the first instance court determined that the victim’s statement was credibility in detail under the title of “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the first instance judgment, and determined that according to the victim’s statement, the facts that the Defendant committed an indecent act once and twice sexual intercourse with the victim with mental disorder can be acknowledged.

In a thorough examination of the records of this case, the court of first instance is justified in finding the defendant guilty of having committed an indecent act once and twice sexual intercourse with the victim with mental disability on the basis of the evidence of this case, and it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts.

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

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant, as his father and wife, committed an indecent act against the aged victim with intellectual disability and sexual intercourse, and the offense was very poor, and the Defendant did not seem to have an attitude against his own act while denying the offense, etc. is recognized as an unfavorable sentencing factor.

On the other hand, the defendant does not want punishment by supporting the mother of 1 brain disease and cancelling the complaint against the defendant, and is a violation of the Road Traffic Act until now.