2. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case is not likely to be a case where the Defendants committed sexual intercourse with the victim who had a mental delay at the home of Defendant B, thereby having sexual intercourse with Defendant B by force.

The victim is showing symptoms, such as depression, due to a big mental impulse.

In addition, even though Defendant A received juvenile protective disposition around 2015 due to sexual assault against the same victim, Defendant A again committed the crime of this case.

However, the extent of power exercised by the Defendants against the victim is relatively minor, Defendant B agreed with the victim, Defendant A still has been in high school as a juvenile, and Defendant A still has been living with his parents who are intellectually disabled persons, and Defendant B seems to have been in a contingent crime upon Defendant A’s recommendation by the disabled in the second degree of intellectual disability. Defendant A did not have any record of crime other than juvenile protective disposition, and Defendant B was the primary offender, and all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, family relation, family relation, criminal record, sex relationship, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as being unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion in this part is without merit.

B. Defendant B entered the Defendant B due to his age, social relation, criminal record, and risk of recidivism, circumstances leading to the instant crime, details of the instant crime, and orders to disclose or notify the public, which are acknowledged by the record, with respect to the unjust assertion that Defendant B exempted from disclosure or notification order.