The judgment below

The guilty part and the victim D.

1. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed a request with this court to change "Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Conduct by Person with Disabilities)" to "Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Conduct by Fraudulent Means, etc. by Persons with Disabilities)," and Article 6 (3) of the applicable Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 6 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 6 (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, "In this case, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim with a physical disability on four occasions in total, on four occasions," thereby changing the subject of the judgment by this court.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts (in the case of prosecutor, it is limited to the assertion of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims C (Rape with Persons with Disabilities) is still subject to the judgment of

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) Whether a crime of fraud is established is established in the Defendant’s assertion that he received money from the victim D. The Defendant’s receipt of money from the victim D is going against the victim’s attempt to put the victim’s children and the head of the house with a view to attempting to take a prison life, and there is no relationship with the victim’s treatment of the lower half-mathy, and thus, the Defendant did not commit rape.

The argument is asserted.

2) It may be deemed that there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is, because there is no clear error in the determination of a documentary evidence of the first instance, or the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is contrary to logical and empirical rules.