The judgment below

Of the judgment below, the part of the crime Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 through 5 and 7 as stated in the judgment of the court below.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution and convicted the remainder of the facts charged (including partial innocence).

Defendant

In addition, the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissed part of the prosecution, and the dismissed part of the prosecution is separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the convicted part (including the

In addition, the court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, the part of the court below's rejection of the above application for compensation in the judgment below is excluded from the scope

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the crime No. 3 of the judgment of the court below), the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force, such as deceiving the victim’s sexual organ and excluding his clothes.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 as indicated in the lower judgment, and three months of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes No. 8 as indicated in the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Person with Disabilities), the lower court which acquitted the Defendant of this part despite the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim with intellectual disability as stated in the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2) The improper prosecutor of sentencing brought an appeal against the whole judgment of the court below in the petition of appeal.

Even though it is indicated in the petition of appeal or the reason for appeal, it is not stated in the detailed reasons for appeal concerning the remaining portion except for the crimes of 1 to 5 and 7 as stated in the judgment below, and the reason for appeal is written.