A. The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with the victim, or by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disability that the victim was unable to resist.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which is a mistake of facts or legal scenario, are: (a) the victim is a disabled person of Grade I with intellectual disability who has a mental age below the level of elementary school students; (b) there is no warning for the victim; (c) the defendant lacks normal recognition ability; (d) the defendant, as the vice-chairperson of the "C division", knew the victim living in the E apartment for about 20 years, and was well aware of the fact that the victim was the intellectual disabled person; (e) the defendant was 58 years of age and the victim was 65 years of age at the time of the crime of this case; (c) the defendant was actually a spouse who did not report a marriage; and (d) the victim and his/her father/child stated in the investigative agency that the victim was not dead; and (d) the victim took the victim's house to hear clothes and belief from the defendant; and (e) the defendant expressed his/her intent to have sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual intercourse with him/her at the time of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

On the other hand, the Defendant each of the instant cases.