However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 19, 2014, the Defendant became aware of contact information through the victim D (n, 15 years of age) and Internet NAV car page, and on February 19, 2014, the Defendant came to talk with the victim at a stay where the victim is living. The victim is a person with disabilities of class 3 (Intelligent Index 35, 69) of intellectual disability as a student of class 1 of high school.

On February 19, 2014, at around 19:00, the Defendant, on the front side of the bus stops located in the south-dong at the time of stay in the north-do, occupied the victim on his own number k7 car operation in the front side of the national highway entrance of the Scheon Village at the time of the same time, and moved back to the front side of the national highway entrance of the Scheon-ri village in the same city, followed the victim by inserting his hand into the front side of the victim's burg, cut back into the back seat, burged with the victim's burg, and burged with the victim's burg, even though the victim was "ma".

After that, the Defendant, “a person who moves to another place”, laid off a vehicle near the Seocho Village Center located approximately 500 meters away from the place, and again, took the victim’s sexual organ into the back seat, and told the victim “a person who does not want to do so”, but the victim prompts the victim’s sexual organ, and inserted the victim’s sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ once in the victim’s sexual organ.

Accordingly, the defendant had sexual intercourse with a disabled child or juvenile who is 19 years of age or older.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Stenographic records prepared in E-mail;

1. The Defendant did not recognize that there was a intellectual disability on the victim at the time of the instant crime. However, according to the above evidence, the victim’s internal investigation report (Attachment of a photo on the scene of damage), internal investigation report (the confirmation of the details of receipt), response to the request for cooperation in investigation, and investigation report (the submission of a victim’s counseling opinion) did not recognize that the victim was a intellectual disability on the part of the victim at the time of the instant crime.