The Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim with the awareness that the victim, who was mixed with the bench in the south-gu E Park Park Park, was not able to make decisions due to mental disorder while drinking alcohol in the south-gu E Park Park Park in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim on one occasion by taking advantage of the fact that the victim again was in the above place on August 19, 2014, and the F, at the early 19:00, was in a state where it is difficult to resist or resist the victim due to mental disorder.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. The prosecutor stated Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “instant penal provisions”) and prosecuted the instant charges.

In regard to this, the defendant and his defense counsel should interpret not only the physical or mental disability in itself but also the case where psychological or physical resistance is impossible or considerably difficult due to the main cause of the physical or mental disability. The defendant and his defense counsel should interpret the meaning of the difficulty to resist beyond the above scope as unconstitutional interpretation that infringes on the principle of equality under the Constitution, the principle of clarity, and the right to pursue happiness. The victim should have the ability to exercise his/her right to pursue sexual self-determination on the basis of intellectual disability.