The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant's mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal: Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force against persons with disabilities) is limited to the accused and did not force the victim to commit an indecent act.

In light of the characteristics of the people with hearing disability, they thought that they are more biased than those who did not have a hearing disability due to their characteristics, and the defendant spreaded to the meaning of the type of writing, and the victim did not refuse to capture.

The victim stated that he was only the defendant's chest while making a statement that he was only the defendant's chest, but rather was only "in a state where he was aware". Even if the defendant was potteries about the defendant's chest while pottering, he did not intentionally commit an indecent act against the victim.

There is no fact that the defendant gets off the vehicle with the victim's her butt.

An interpreter who interpreted the victim's sign language in the police station stated that "the defendant is close to the victim's her butt her butt her but her."

Inasmuch as the interpretation to the effect that “” is the same as that of sign language, the said interpreter’s interpretation is appropriate to interpret the said interpreter’s interpretation as “nicker”.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

At the trial of the case, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that "01:47 around 02:0" changed the time of the crime under paragraph (1) from "01:47 around 02:0", and this court permitted the amendment.

However, the above changes in indictment only clearly state the time to commit the crimes in the existing indictment, and thereby it is necessary to make additional judgments on the facts charged.