The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

(e).

The defendant was aware of the lack of intellectual ability than the general public as the victim C (V, 31 years old) who resided in the second floor of the defendant's residence in the second floor of the defendant's residence, and used it to attract the victim to have sexual intercourse.

On November 13, 2015, 12:20 around 12:20, the Defendant made the victim enter the Defendant’s room under the pretext of leading the victim to his official book in the Defendant’s residence located in the Crossing-gun D1st, and, on the other hand, took the victim in a state of difficulty in resisting due to mental disorder, put the victim’s hand into the victim’s sexual organ, put the victim’s hand into the victim’s sexual organ, put the victim’s hand into the victim’s sexual organ, and sexual intercourse once by inserting the victim’s lower part and inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's in a state of difficulty to resist due to mental disability.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The statement of a victim recorded in video recording CDs;

1. Investigation report (related to statement C by a victim);

1. A certificate of the disabled person and a medical opinion;

1. In the investigation report (related to the victim DNA detected by the suspect A's sex collection key), response to a request for appraisal (2015-M-33161) / [the defendant and his/her defense counsel sparing the victim and inserting his/her fingers in the victim's sexual organ, but there is no fact that the defendant insertings his/her sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ.

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the victim's statement to the effect that the defendant inserted the defendant's sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ is credibility.

Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim as stated in the ruling.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

(1) Although the victim did not use a clear door, the victim may do so at an investigative agency, “(assorting in a sound book)” (the defendant).