The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. According to the statements by the victim of the grounds of appeal, the fact that the defendant inserted the fingers of the victim in the state of mental disorder due to the sleep by the defendant can be acknowledged, and the fact that the victim has sexual intercourse with the defendant cannot be seen as circumstances after the crime was established, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, even though the fact that the victim could have sexual intercourse with the defendant after the crime was established.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor: (a) maintained the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged; (b) applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to an indictment containing the same facts charged as stated in the facts charged under Article 299 and Article 298 of the Criminal Act in the name of the offense; and (c) applied for the amendment of an indictment containing the same facts charged as stated in the facts charged under the Criminal Act; and (d) since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto determination, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Examining the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of the reasons indicated in Articles 3 through 5 of the lower judgment was in the state of the victim’s mental disorder or inability to resist.