Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) as to the crime of indecent act by mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below with respect to the defendant and the person who filed a medical care and custody claim (hereinafter “the defendant”), the defendant was aware of the victim C at the time, but the victim was not aware of the consent of the victim C at the time, and there

On November 18, 2015, as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant’s use of force by force, such as: (a) the finding of the J Senior Welfare Center at the time, requesting the K Welfare Center to meet; (b) the demand was made; (c) however, there was no significant noise to the extent that the service of the above welfare center is interfered with; or (d) doing any act to interfere with the duties of the welfare center.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (the penalty amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

Although it is not clear whether the defendant in violation of disclosure disclosure order asserts this part on the ground of appeal, it is possible to judge whether the defendant asserts this part on the ground of appeal.

It is unfair that the court below ordered the disclosure and notification of the personal information of the defendant for two years.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the part of the case against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

The court below's dismissal of the defendant's request for the medical care and custody since the defendant's request for medical care and custody needs to receive medical treatment in the medical care and custody facilities and risk

Judgment

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning the crime of indecent act committed by the defendant in the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and in particular the victim's statement C, the defendant could have sparly acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below without the victim's consent. Thus, this part of the defendant'

"Power of force" in relation to interference with one's own business on November 18, 2015 as the judgment of the court below refers to any force that may cause confusion with another's free will, and is tangible or intangible.