(1) As to the scope of application of Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “instant provision”) on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes claiming the misunderstanding of the gist of grounds for appeal or misapprehension of legal principles, the instant provision applies only to cases where a normal person has sexual intercourse with a disabled person by taking advantage of the state of difficulty in resisting or resisting the disabled person. As in the instant case, the instant provision cannot be applied to cases where a defendant who is a third intellectual disabled person has sexual intercourse with a disabled person, and thus, the Defendant cannot be established a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape, etc. of Disabled Persons).

Even if it is interpreted that the provision of this case applies to the case where a disabled person has sexual intercourse with a disabled person, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an intent to use the victim’s refusal to resist or to resist the situation where it was difficult to resist, even though it is interpreted that the latter has a mental age of 8 to 9 years.

As to the interpretation of Article 9 of the Criminal Code, the mental age of the accused, who is a Grade 3 intellectually disabled person, is merely 8-9 years of age, and thus falls under a criminal minor under the age of less than 14 years under Article 9 of the Criminal Code, which is a person without responsibility under the Criminal Code, the accused cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the

The defendant who asserts mental disorder shall commit each of the crimes in this case.