The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts that the defendant conspired with the victim's chest, the defendant was not able to keep his hand in his clothes, but only outside of his clothes.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts: (i) the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court; (ii) the victim, at the time of the victim’s statement made in the presence of the trusted person, specifically stated the background of the crime as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment; (iii) the victim made a concrete and consistent statement on the part of the victim, i.e., the victim’s speech and behavior; and (iv) the emotional testimony and response that she sawd at the time of the victim’s statement; and (v) the victim led the investigator to a specific answer, even if examining the victim’s statement as a whole.

The credibility of a victim's statement is recognized in full view of the facts that there are no circumstances to deem that there was an unfair influence on the victim's statement due to the repeated or repeated cancer, and ultimately, the defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim under the same circumstances as the facts stated in the

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is only subject to a fine on one occasion for a traffic-related crime, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, the crime of this case uses the victim's intellectual disability in which the defendant was in a de facto and imprisoned relationship to meet his own sexual desire.