All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Although Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that the injured party had a mental disability, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the instant conjunctive charges by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, etc.) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Although the victim’s statement was reliable, the lower court acquitted the victim of the primary facts charged of this case on the ground that the victim’s statement was not reliable due to misconception of the facts.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

3) There are special circumstances in which disclosure of personal information against the illegal defendant is exempted from disclosure disclosure disclosure order.

However, the lower court’s exemption from the disclosure notification order is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, it can be recognized that the Defendant recognized that the Defendant had a mental disorder to the extent that he could not exercise his right to sexual decision at the time

The decision was determined.

① In light of the victim’s 23 years of age, intellectual disability 3, total intelligence 45 (referred to as language intelligence 45, 60), social age 7 years and 10 months, and the victim’s appearance, overall statement attitude, and understanding of, and response to, the questioner’s physical drinking as at the time of damage, etc., the victim appears to have considerable and low intellectual ability compared to the general public, and shows a low level of speech ability and recognition ability.

Therefore, it seems that the victim can easily be aware that he/she has a mental disability, and the defendant is the same apartment as the victim.