All judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

For the defendant 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to liverness, intellectual disability, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. On the second instance judgment, the Defendant did not make the victim E as soon as possible, such as the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, as stated in the facts charged.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is justifiable in light of relevant evidence, even if the grounds for appeal submitted by the Defendant on September 15, 2014 contain an assertion of mistake of the part concerning robbery, as to the allegation of mental and physical disability as to the judgment of the first instance court.

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant was a disabled person who was judged as having a disability level 4 due to the chronic disorder from around 2007. However, in light of the circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case, the attitude of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant does not seem to have been in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of each of the crimes

B. On May 30, 2014, at around 23:20 on May 30, 2014, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (1) A victim E, a disabled person of Grade II (the age of 19), who was accommodated in the same room room, at around 23:20, in the same room room located in C, the Defendant: (1) “A victim E, a disabled person of Grade II (the age of 19), who is a disabled person of Grade II (the age of 19), is called “as soon as he does not go in the front way,” and (2) the victim’s refusal to do so, thereby inducing the victim to enter his sexual organ rapidly.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim with mental disability.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in full view of the following circumstances.

(1)