Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Determination as to the mistake of facts and the assertion of mental and physical disorder by the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”);

A. The Defendant did not force the victim E to commit an indecent act, and had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

The argument is asserted.

B. There is no new objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and in the absence of reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the trial process of this court.

In addition, the court below rejected each of the above arguments on the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the judgment in detail on the "determination of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" of the judgment.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the court below's determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument about the acknowledgement of facts and the mental and physical disorder violated logical and empirical rules, etc. is considerably unfair.

The court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and rejecting the defendant's mental disorder argument.

Since the judgment of the court below does not contain any error as alleged by the defendant, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the perspective that the victimized person, as the father of the victimized person, received a false report, such as late in school.