아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(장애인간음)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) The victim does not constitute a disabled child who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to a mental disorder.
2) Even if the victimized person was a disabled child juvenile, the Defendant did not know that the victimized person was a intellectual disability at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s intellectual distress at the time of each of the instant crimes.
In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the victim constitutes “disabled children” and the fact that the Defendant did not recognize the above points at the time of committing the instant crime can be fully recognized.
Therefore, the court below's finding of facts and determination are just, and there are errors by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
1) The Defendant was the same as having a little intellectual obstacle in the prosecution.
We have stated “(247 pages of evidence),” “I have the intellectual ability lost” to question “I have no intellectual disability from the time the victim became a victim.”
The Defendant stated that “I would not know that the victim would have been well aware of the fact that the victim would have been able to distinguish things due to intellectual disability and lack of ability to make judgment,” and I would have stated that “I would have caused the victim to change his/her intellectual ability.”
(v).