1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal alleged mental or physical disability as the grounds for appeal, but the defendant withdrawn it on the first trial of the court of first instance.

The defendant, at the request of the victim F, has a physical contact with the above victim only once, and there is no other fact that he committed an indecent act against the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges guilty, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In light of the facts charged and the fact that the public prosecutor added “the quasi-Rape of a minor” and “a minor’s indecent act by force” to the applicable provisions of the Act, and the applicable provisions of the Act “Articles 305, 297-2, and 298 of the Criminal Act” to the effect that an application for changes in the indictment and the application for changes in the indictment to the facts constituting the cause of a request for an attachment order should be amended as mentioned above. However, in this case, it is clear that the above application for changes as well as the facts charged should be amended together with the fact that “the facts constituting the cause of the request for an attachment order” and “the fact of the request for an attachment order” should be combined with “the facts constituting the sexual crime case” and “the fact of the request for an attachment order” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1626, Apr. 29, 2010).

Among them, “Indecent act was committed against a victim under the age of 13 by force” was partly applied for permission to modify the Bill of Amendment to the Rules to “a victim under the age of 13 has committed similar rape” and “a victim under the age of 13 has committed an indecent act,” and the subject of the judgment has been changed by this Court.