Of the guilty portion and the innocent portion of the lower judgment, the damage to property on March 17, 2015 shall be reversed on or around 09:00.

Defendant .

Although the victim's statement concerning special intimidation and forced indecent act in this case is consistent with the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below rejected it and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence (1.5 million won) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment of the court below applied for the amendment of an indictment to the effect that each of the property was damaged on March 16, 2015 and March 17, 2015, around 10:00 of the facts charged in the instant case, and around March 17, 2015, as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged in the instant case. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission, the portion of the conviction and the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained on March 17, 2015.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the court's ruling despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of special intimidation and forced indecent conduct in this case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime, and found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of the crime of intimidation and forced indecent conduct in this case. In other words, in relation to the special intimidation part, D, in relation to the Defendant’s and the pentas, was aware of the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as follows:

In light of the fact that there is room to see it, ② In relation to the forced indecent act part, the Defendant described it as a personal body condition that he had been using an indoor laging device, etc. at the court below (202, 205 side of the trial record).