Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted all of the facts charged of this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant, at around 19:30 on November 19, 2015, had sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a juvenile with disabilities, by inserting the victim’s studio 34 in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, where the victim was 16 years of age, and was unable to take place on the floor, and was pushed off the victim’s chests, exceeded the victim’s breath, and by inserting his sexual organ, had sexual intercourse with the victim who is a juvenile with disabilities by force.

B. The lower court’s determination 1) as to whether the Defendant was aware that the victim was a disabled person at the time of the instant case, and considering the content of the text message sent by the Defendant to the victim’s male-child, etc. at the time of the instant case, the lower court suspected that the victim was not aware of the disabled person at the time of the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with the victim, but in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s determination as to whether the victim was a mentally disabled person to the extent that the victim could not exercise his right to sexual self-determination, or that the Defendant was aware that the victim was a mentally disabled person at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to see

In light of the facts charged in the instant case.