The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: when the defendant resides in a multi-household in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2004, he did not commit an indecent act against the victim in order to confirm whether the victim was the victim, and the victim did not commit an indecent act against the victim by putting the defendant's hand on his own, and then did not commit another indecent act against the victim again.

As above, the Defendant started to commit an indecent act by force with the sole fact that the Defendant had the victim’s arms opened in order to confirm whether the victim was the victim.

the victim was unable to resist because the victim was divingd at that time

there is no evidence to determine the person.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act by mistake or coercion.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who has a kinship with the victim due to the victim D's depression (math 23 years of age).

The Defendant, after 23:00 on November 1, 2005, 23:0, reported that the victims of 11 years of age who were 11 were able to sleep in the room located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment 1, 607, Dong-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 2005.

I think, I think that the victim's chest was sleeped with the victim's chest.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim using a locked state.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant concealed a victim in a state of impossibility of resistance on the ground of locking 23:00 on or after the mid-term 23:00 of November 2005, as stated in the lower judgment.

The decision was determined.

1) With respect to the content and time of the damage, the victim “The extent of the damage had not been caused for several months prior to that day, but could have been leaked or attempted to sleep. However, it was the same as the victim was satis on the part of the victim when he delivered the chest.

. his conduct.