The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order is requested is called the "defendant" for convenience.

Although there is an intellectual obstacle, there is a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and considering the circumstances of the crime of this case and the statement of the defendant, the intention of the indecent act by force can be acknowledged to the defendant.

It is not an essential difference depending on the body part in contact with women in the crime of forced indecent conduct against women.

The defendant's act is an indecent act by force when the defendant takes custody of the victim's arms.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the premise different from this premise.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant, as the disabled with the second degree of intellectual disability, had a very low understanding ability, judgment ability, abstract thinking ability, etc., so that he/she lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, he/she was able to commit an indecent act against the victim D (the name, the age of 11) who waits for an elevator to go to a private teaching institute in front of the first floor elevator of the C Building at Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si around November 13, 2017, when he/she lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

The Defendant, in the stairs of the same building where the victim was frighted, committed an indecent act against a minor under the age of 13 by forcing the victim to take away the victim’s left arms from the stairs between the 1st floor and the 2nd floor (hereinafter “the stairs of this case”).

B. The lower court’s determination on the following grounds reveals that the Defendant’s act constitutes an indecent act or committed an indecent act against the Defendant by the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor.

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.

The Defendant, while having a telephone conversation with his mother-child, was flicking between the victim's left hand and the elbows, and 2 to 3 times.