The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 6 (5) and (6) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) provide for punishing persons who have sexual intercourse with, or committed indecent acts against, persons with disabilities through deceptive means.

The term "a deceptive scheme" as referred to in the above provision means that an offender misleads the other party for the purpose of sexual intercourse or indecent act, causes a misunderstanding, perception, or site to achieve the purpose of sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of such in-depth state of the other party. Here, the term "misunderstanding, mistake, perception, and site" refers to mistake, mistake, and site as to sexual intercourse or indecent act itself, or mistake, mistake, mistake, and site as to other conditions which are not recognized as not inseparably related to sexual intercourse or indecent act, does not refer to a site.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9119, Sept. 27, 2012). The gist of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant, knowing that the victim had a mental disorder, had sexual intercourse and indecent conduct with a disabled victim by inducing the victim at the home of the Defendant by using an Internet page, and by sexual intercourse and conspiracy.

However, even if the defendant induceds the victim with the purpose of sexual intercourse, etc. and made the victim mistake in the office of the defendant, the defendant's inducement is merely an act to mislead the victim into the office of the defendant, and since it is not acknowledged that the victim's sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse is indivisible between the defendant's house and the defendant's sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse, the victim's inducement was omitted in mistake on the part of the defendant's sexual intercourse or indecent act.

subsection (1) shall not be deemed to have become aware of or become no such information.

Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute the crime of sexual intercourse or indecent act with a deceptive scheme against the disabled under the Act on Special Cases.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of the first instance that convicted of the facts charged of this case.