The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not have committed an indecent act or assault against the victim C in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person with Disabilities) and assault, but the lower court convicted all of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, although he merely lent the name of loan and did not receive money from the victim H in collusion. At the time, he knew that the lease contract provided as security for the victim H was false, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively adopting the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he committed an indecent act and assault against the victim C on two occasions as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

A) As a result of the intelligence inspection (K-WAS) on the victim C with a mental disability of grade III, the victim C is in a situation where it is difficult for the victim C to properly cope with the social problem situation due to the lack of the ability to grasp the important proviso or circumstance in a simple case or situation, lack of understanding of the temporal and circumstantial relationship, and lack of understanding of social problems.

In addition, as a result of the inspection of the social maturity for victims C, the social age (SA) is 8.83 years and the social index (S Q) is 49 years more than the intellectual ability.