The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of ten months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles) Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by Persons with Disabilities) except for the following parts: “Violation of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by Forced Persons with Disabilities)” (hereinafter “Violation of the Act”).

In addition, Defendant A did not commit an indecent act against the victims in this part of this part, and the victims expressed false and exaggerated statements to Defendant A on the ground that the victim H L was in conflict with the Defendants in relation to the operation of the F workplace (hereinafter “instant workplace”) which is an occupation rehabilitation facility for disabled persons, or that the work of the instant workplace is excessive.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged guilty on the basis of the statements of the victims with no credibility.

B) The Defendants filed a complaint against the crime of forgery or alteration of documents on the ground that the Defendants’ written confirmation of inspection of guidance by the FF business place (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”) does not constitute a document under the Criminal Act.

Even if there is no accusation against an act that does not constitute a crime, it is nothing more than an accusation.

In addition, the Defendants filed a complaint with the suspicion of forgery or alteration, changing the draft of the instant written confirmation and the content of the confirmation that the actual signature was made, and in the case of the lease agreement with freezing and freezing (hereinafter “Lease agreement of this case”), H affixed the lease agreement without obtaining approval from Defendant B, the representative of the business place of this case.

Since I think that the complaint was filed for the forgery and use of private document, the defendants have no intention to commit the crime.

2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants to the sentencing unfair (Defendant A: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, 4 years of suspended execution, 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, 160 hours of community service, 1 year of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

(b)a prosecutor;