A. Although the Defendant had intellectual disability at the time of committing the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant failed to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) on the grounds that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. According to the examination and evaluation report prepared by U ofS. on the instant case’s argument on the unfair mitigation of mental illness, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., the defendant presented his opinion that his mental body level is 57 years of intelligence index, social age is 7 years of age and 10 months of age, and social index is 56 years. According to the notice of the result of the mental diagnosis of the defendant by the Medical Treatment and Custody Director at the court below, the defendant was evaluated as the mental body level of intelligence index 42, social age 10 years of age, and social index 65 years of age, and the defendant’s low intelligence was judged to have a relation with the instant crime by directly affecting his own ability to distinguish, make decision-making ability, and impulse impulse ability, and the defendant did not seem to have a normal mental state since 10 years of traffic accident before the instant crime was committed, and the defendant's opinion that he did not change his ability to read or use this case's opinion at the time of the instant crime was insufficient, but there was no reason to deem that the defendant's simple work or work.

B. The instant crime against the assertion of unfair sentencing is that the Defendant raped the victim under the age of 13 due to intellectual disability on three occasions and the nature of the crime is not good, and the victim suffers considerable mental suffering due to the instant crime.