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, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 7 million, the order to complete a program 40 hours, and the order to disclose or notify the case one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the charge of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by compulsion of the disabled) among the facts charged by mistake of facts, the entire charges should be found guilty, since the evidence submitted reveals that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s mental disability.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Of the facts charged, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim with intellectual disability three times in the middle of 14:00 and around 16:00 on March 9, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by force against the disabled).

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by compulsion of persons with disabilities) on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by knowing that the victim was a victim’s intellectual disability 3 (209 pages of investigation records) and that the Defendant stated in the police that “the victim has a right to face a normal mother and child” (112 pages of investigation records), but considering the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each indecent act by compulsion, which is part of the facts charged.

① The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “The victim’s son and son’s son and son’s son and son’s son and son’s son’s son and son

(112 pages). (2) The victim stated in this court that “the person who knows the lower is a handicapped person,” and “the defendant was only the second chest and said person was a handicapped person,” and the investigative agency also knows that there is such a disability.