(a)[The name of the principal offense: the punishment, etc. of sexual crime;

Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Persons with Disabilities

Criminal Name: Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

quasi-rape, etc.; (b) Recognized name of the crime: a judge in charge of the punishment of a sexual crime;

violation of the Act of Special Cases (Quasi-rape, etc. for the Disabled) and alternatively changed

Criminal Name: Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

【Indecent Act】

2015No. 10 (Joint Attachment Orders)

21 (Consolidated Judgment) Judgment

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Information on the accused shall be disclosed through an information and communications network for five years, and information shall be notified during the aforesaid period.

To the person subject to the request for attachment order, an electronic tracking device shall be attached for five years.

Matters to be observed, such as the attached Form, shall be imposed on the person requested to attach an attachment.

(a) The defendant and the person to whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant");

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

In light of the fact that the victim's hostings on the NH website are complicated and complicated procedures such as identification of the victim and settlement of small amount on the NH website, and the NH website is divided into NH website and CH website, the victim himself/herself has taken advantage of public transportation to the house of the defendant who is a long distance, and the victim has reconvened the defendant again even after the first sexual intercourse occurred, the victim cannot be deemed to have been in the state of non-performance due to mental disability that prevents the victim from exercising his/her right to sexual self-determination at the time of the crime of this case, and even if the victim was in the state of non-performance due to mental disability, the victim was not aware of the fact that the victim was in such state, and there was no sexual intercourse or indecent act with the victim by inducing the victim with a deceptive scheme.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (a three-year imprisonment, a disclosure and notification order for five-year period, and an electronic tracking device attachment for five-year period) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged by the court below

피고인은 2013. 1.경 인터넷 채팅사이트인 C을 통해 지적장애 3급 및 정신분열증 등의 정신장애가 있는 피해자 D(여, 21세)을 알게 되었다. 피고인은 피해자가 정신적인 장애로 인하여 성적 자기결정권을 행사하기 어려운 점을 이용하여 자신의 집으로 유인하여 간음하거나 추행하기로 마음먹고, 2013. 1. 3. 21:35경 C으로 피해자에게 '○○야 너가 말도 없이 걍 나가버려서 쪽지 남긴다, 너가 오면 재미있게 놀자 그나저나 어떻게 만원도 없을 수가 있니 언제 올꺼니?? 암튼 너가 오면 재미나게 놀자 알겠지^^' 라는 등 쪽지를 수십 회 보내는 방법으로 피해자를 유혹하여 정신적인 장애가 있는 피해자가 피고인의 주거지인 천안시 서북구 E빌딩 304호로 오도록 하였다.

1) On January 18, 2013, at around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) had been aware that the victim’s horse dose is divided into the victim’s residence; and (b) the victim’s behavior is well-grounded in the outer view; (c) induced the victim to engage in sexual intercourse once by inserting the victim’s sexual organ into the victim’s negative organ; and (d) continued to engage in sexual intercourse in the same manner around 05:00 on January 19, 2013.

2) On February 4, 2013, at the same place as above 1:30 on February 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) had been aware that the victim’s horse speculation is divided into two parts; and (b) even if the victim’s behavior is viewed as the outer part, the Defendant induced the victim with awareness that there was a intellectual obstacle to the victim; (c) had the victim committed indecent act by force by force by force, with the victim’s conspiracy and joint-use plane at that place.

3) At the same time and place as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 2, the Defendant: (a) induced the victim to have sexual intercourse once by inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s sound book, and continued to have sexual intercourse on February 5, 2013 in the same manner as the victim’s sexual organ was inserted, with the knowledge that the victim’s verbal speculation is divided into two parts, and that there is a intellectual disorder in the part of the victim’s conduct even in view of the outer part.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim who has a mental disability through fraudulent means and committed indecent acts.

B. Ex officio determination

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor added ex officio the name of the conjunctive crime to “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape-rape, etc. against Disabled Persons)”, “Article 6(4) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act” as stated in the conjunctive facts charged, and “Article 1 and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”, and Article 2 of the Decree on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), and Article 9(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “The Defendant has been punished on February 4, 2013, at the residence of the Defendant, and Article 304 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) with the victim’s consent to the alteration of the provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of the Defendant.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined (this court's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the part concerning the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is not separately judged to be guilty of the charge of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles [Defendant’s charge 1] and 3]

1) Article 6(5) and (6) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for punishing a person who has sexual intercourse with or commits an indecent act against a disabled person through a deceptive scheme. The term “defensive scheme” as referred to in the above provision refers to that a perpetrator misleads the other party for the purpose of sexual intercourse or indecent act; causes mistake, awareness, or land to achieve the purpose of sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of such physical state of the other party. Here, the term “misunderstanding, mistake, and site” refers to the mistake, mistake, and site as to the act of sexual intercourse or indecent act itself, or other conditions that are not recognized as indivisible to the act of sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse, or indecent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do919, Sept. 27, 2012).

2) In light of the above legal principles, even if the defendant inducedd the victim with the purpose of sexual intercourse and let the victim enter the office of the defendant, the defendant's inducement is merely an act to let the victim enter the office of the defendant, and since it is not acknowledged that the victim's sexual intercourse is indivisible between the defendant's sexual intercourse and the defendant's sexual intercourse is not acknowledged, the victim's inducement is not deemed to be erroneous or to have become unaware of it. Therefore, since the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of sexual intercourse by fraudulent means against the disabled under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the court below's determination of the part 1) and 3) is based on the crime of violation of Article 6 (5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on deceptive scheme, which is an element of Article 6 (5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the accused case has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and the defendant's appeal has some reasons, and therefore, the part concerning the accused case among the judgment below should be reversed. As long as the part concerning the accused case is reversed, the part concerning the case concerning the attachment order which must be tried together with the judgment cannot be reversed, and the part concerning the case concerning the request for an order to attach an electronic device which should be sentenced simultaneously with the judgment cannot be reversed. Thus, without examining the judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment is

Criminal facts

피고인은 2013. 1.경 인터넷 채팅사이트인 C을 통해 지적장애 3급 및 정신분열증 등의 정신장애가 있는 피해자 D(여, 21세)을 알게 되었다. 피고인은 피해자가 정신적인 장애로 인하여 항거불능 또는 항거곤란 상태에 있음을 이용하여 간음하거나 추행하기로 마음먹고, 2013. 1. 3. 21:35경 C으로 피해자에게 '○○야 너가 말도 없이 걍 나가버려서 쪽지 남긴다. 너가 오면 재미있게 놀자 그나저나 어떻게 만원도 없을 수가 있니 언제 올꺼니?? 암튼 너가 오면 재미나게 놀자 알겠지^^' 라는 등 쪽지를 수십 회 보내 정신적인 장애가 있는 피해자가 자신의 주거지인 천안시 서북구 E빌딩 304호로 오도록 하였다.

1. At around 22:00 on January 18, 2013, the Defendant, at the above Defendant’s residence, had sexual intercourse once by inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sexual organ in a state of difficulty in resisting or resisting due to mental disability, and continued to have sexual intercourse at around 05:0 on January 19, 2013 by inserting the victim’s sexual organ into the same manner.

2. At around 23:30 on February 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) took advantage of the victim’s mental disability that the victim was unable to resist or resist; (b) and (c) took advantage of the victim’s mental disability, thereby making the victim’s conspiracy with the victim’s hump and humd’s humfous act by compulsion.

3. The Defendant, at the same time and place as the above Paragraph 2, had sexual intercourse once by inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sexual organ on February 5, 2013, by using the victim’s mental disorder in a state of difficulty in resisting or resisting the victim’s sexual organ due to mental disability, and continued sexual intercourse once in the same manner as in February 5, 2013

Facts of the cause of attachment order

As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, the Defendant committed a sexual crime on at least two occasions, and committed a sexual crime against the victim who is a mentally disabled person, in a situation where it is difficult for the victim to exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination due to mental disorders such as the third degree of intellectual disability and mental fission, and thus, it is recognized that the sexual crime has been committed, and there is a risk of recommitting

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is the same as the relevant column of the judgment of the court below, and it is citing it in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 6(4) and (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Articles 299 and 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 6(4) and (3) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Articles 299 and 298 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 201)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Quasi-Rape, etc. against Disabled Persons) concerning Sexual Intercourse on February 5, 2013 in paragraph (3) of the said Article]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following sentencing grounds shall be taken into consideration in favor of the accused):

1. Order to disclose and notify;

Articles 37(1)1 and (3), and 41(1)1 and (3) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. Orders to attach an electronic tracking device;

Article 9(1)1 and Article 5(1)5 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders [where a prosecutor must dismiss an appeal filed by a prosecutor against a request for attachment order because both a defendant and a prosecutor appealeds from both the grounds of appeal regarding the request for attachment order, although the prosecutor fails to submit the grounds of appeal regarding the request for attachment order, the appellate court shall be deemed to have imposed a heavier punishment than that of the first instance court regarding the request for attachment order in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, since only the defendant appealed from the case regarding the request for attachment order, and the appellate court shall not impose a heavier punishment than that of the first instance court regarding the case regarding the request for attachment order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15260, 2012Do259, Feb. 28, 2013). As such, according to Article 9(1)1 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the maximum statutory punishment period for attachment order or imprisonment for not less than 97 years against the disabled Act.

1. Imposition of obligations;

Article 9-2 (1) 3 and 4 of the Act on Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

When committing the instant crime, the victim cannot be deemed to have had mental disability sufficient to exercise his right to sexual self-determination, and even if the victim was unable to resist due to mental disability, the victim did not know at all that the victim was in such state, and had sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, without being aware of the fact that the victim was in such state.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 6 (4) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the instant case, provides that "a person who commits a crime under Article 299 of the Criminal Act against a person with a physical or mental disability, shall be punished according to the example of paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be punished." The above provision is a legal interest protected in the sexual self-determination right of a person with a disability and is applied to cases where a person has sexual intercourse with another person or commits indecent act

Meanwhile, “the state of disability or mental disability to be unable to resist” shall be deemed to include not only the case where the physical or mental disability itself is in a state of disability or mental disability, but also the case where psychological or physical disability is in a state of disability or difficulty. In determining whether a victim’s mental disability has a state of mental disability to be unable to resist, the degree and relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, including the status of the victim and the perpetrator, surrounding circumstances or environment, the perpetrator’s behavior and method, and the victim’s awareness and response should be comprehensively examined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do574, Mar. 15, 2012). Furthermore, in light of the legislative purport of the above provision that intends to protect the victim’s sexual self-determination right, the determination of whether the victim was physically disabled, should be sufficiently taken into account. As such, whether the victim was in a state of disability, i.e., mental disability, mental ability, etc., 201.

B. Whether the victim was in a state of impossibility to resist due to mental disability

살피건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피해자는 이미 만 4세경 지능지수 51, 사회지수 44로 지적장애 2급을 판정받았다가 2013. 1.경 지능지수가 51에서 54로 상향됨에 따라 지적장애 3급으로 변경되었으나 사회지수는 오히려 예전보다 떨어져 30.09이고, 사회연령은 6.38세에 불과한 정신지체자인 것으로 나타난 점, ② 피해자는 피고인이 피해자의 음모를 깎는 행위를 하였음에도 이에 대하여 거부감을 표시하지 않는 등 성범죄와 관련된 상황에 대하여 거부 또는 반항해야 하는 행동이 필요한 상황인지를 이해하는 것이 거의 불가능해보이고, 어떤 방식으로 거부 또는 반항해야 하는지를 판단하고 구체적인 행동으로 옮기는 것도 불가능해 보이는 점, ③ I상담소장인 J는 '피해자가 월경을 알고 있으나, 남자와 성관계를 하면 여성의 몸이 어떻게 변화하는지, 임신, 아기가 어디로 태어나는지에 대하여 모르고 있는 등 성에 대한 이해도가 매우 낮고 자신에게 가해지는 행위가 성폭력이라는 것조차도 제대로 인지하지 못하고 있다'는 의견을 제시한 점, ④ 피해자는 수사기관에서 조사를 받을 당시 같은 단어를 반복 사용하며, 질문한 단어를 다시 사용하는 등 언어 표현이 단순하였고, 질문에 대한 대답은 매우 짧아서 길거나 복잡한 형태의 문장을 잘 구사하지 못하는 등 의사 전달능력이 떨어졌으며, 주의도 산만한 모습을 보이는 등 성폭력에 대한 대처능력 또한 매우 미약한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 피해자가 다른 것은 할 줄 모르지만 집에 있는 컴퓨터나 피씨방에 가서 채팅하는 것은 잘하고, 자신의 주민등록번호, 피고인의 핸드폰번호, 날짜 등 숫자에 대한 개념은 알고 있는 것으로 보이는 등 피해자가 인터넷 채팅사이트에 가입하여 대화를 할 정도의 지능은 있었다고 보이나 그러한 사정만으로 피해자가 다른 영역, 특히 성적인 영역에 대하여도 일반인과 같은 정도의 지능을 보유하고 있었다고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑥ 피해자가 인터넷 채팅으로 알게 된 피고인을 만나기 위해 늦은 밤에 제천에서 천안까지 피고인의 집을 찾아오고, 첫 번째 성관계 이후 다시 피고인을 만나러 온 사실은 인정되나, 이는 피고인이 피해자에게 여러 차례 천안으로 오라는 쪽지(2012. 12. 28., 2012. 12. 30., 2013. 1. 3. 2회)를 보내 피해자를 천안으로 오게 하고, 그 후 2013. 2. 3.에도 "너나 피하냐??? 천안에 온다고 하더니만 어제도 안 오고 오늘도 안 오구 나랑 이젠 아는 척도 하기 싫은거냐?? A 오빠가 답장 꼭 해라"라는 쪽지를 보내 피해자를 다시 천안에 오도록 유인하여 피해자로 하여금 천안으로 오게 한 것으로 보이고, 피해자는 피고인의 집에 두 번째 찾아간 이유에 대해 "구박하니까 의심하고 그러니까, 끝까지 사랑 안하면 끝내자고 했어요"라고 대답한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피해자가 피고인을 찾아 간 것은 피해자의 지적 능력이 정상이어서라기보다는 오히려 작은 유인에도 쉽게 사람에게 이끌리거나 순종하는 경향이 있는 정신 장애인의 특성으로 볼 수 있는 점, ⑦ 피해자는 인터넷 채팅으로 피고인을 알게 되어 채팅사이트에서 대화를 하다가 이 사건 범행 당시 처음으로 피고인을 직접 만난 사이였음에도 피고인이 자신의 옷을 벗기고 성관계를 하는 것에 별다른 저항을 하지 않았고, '자장면을 먹자'거나 '돈 만원 준다고 오라'고 하는 피고인의 말에 차비가 없음에도 제천에서 천안까지 피고인을 찾아가는 등 정상인으로서는 선뜻 이해되지 않는 행동을 보인 점, ⑧ 일반적으로 정신지체를 가진 사람들은 자기보다 힘이나 능력이 우월한 사람에게 위압감을 느껴 누가 시키지 않아도 이에 절대적으로 복종하고, 평소 사람들에게 애정과 관심을 못 받기 때문에 조그만 관심에도 마음을 열고 의지하는 경향을 갖고 있어 애정을 위장하거나 친분관계를 이용한 가해행위에 취약한데, 피해자도 경찰에서 "피고인의 집에 다시 간 이유는 무엇인가요"라는 질문에 "구박할까봐요", "끝내고 싶냐고 해서요", "(피고인이 피해자에게) 왜 자꾸 안오냐? 피하냐? 고 그래요", "사랑하면 이리 오래요", "일단은 오빠 믿고 오라고 했어 요"라고 일관되게 진술하고 있는 등 정신지체를 가진 사람들의 경향을 보이고 있는 점, ⑨ 피해자의 조모는 경찰 등에서 '피해자가 피고인을 만나고 돌아온 이후 갑자기 이유 없이 자신을 때려 병원에서 입원하였다'는 취지로 진술하여, 피고인의 간음행위가 일방적이었고 그로 인한 피해자의 정신적 후유증이 매우 컸음을 알 수 있고, 피해자도 경찰에서 "피고인을 잡아 갔으면 좋겠어요"라고 진술하여 피고인이 피해자와 합의 하에 성관계를 맺은 것으로는 보이지 않고, 피해자가 성에 대한 이해도가 매우 낮아 정상적으로 성관계에 대하여 합의하였다고 보기도 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 피해자에게 별다른 강제력을 행사하지 않았고, 피해자 또한 피고인에게 별다른 저항을 하지 않았다고 하더라도, 피해자는 정신상의 장애가 주된 원인이 되어 피고인에 대하여 그 거부 또는 저항의사를 실행하는 것이 불가능하거나 현저하게 곤란한 상태에 있었다고 할 것이어서 형법 제299조 소정의 항거불능의 상태(지적장애로 성적 자기결정권을 행사하기 어려운 상태)에 있었던 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

C. Whether the defendant recognized the above victim's status and used the above victim's status

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, ① a person with ordinary capacity to judge the victim's sexual intercourse is likely to easily understand that the victim was a intellectual disorder even if the victim was first made by dividing the victim's sexual intercourse with the investigation agency. ② The victim took Hand-phones for the defendant's telephone during the first time to find his house, and even if the victim was suffering from her house, K was the same as that of the victim and was able to know the victim's intellectual ability because the victim was unable to clearly express his or her opinion, ③ The defendant was off his or her house with his or her own house (the victim's sexual intercourse with the victim's own house) and the content that he or she was off of his or her house with his or her own bar on the day he or she was off of his or her house (the victim's my or her bar bar, etc.).

D. Sub-committee

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

Registration of Personal Information

Where a conviction on the instant criminal facts becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant is a person subject to registration of personal information under Article 32(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. As such, Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) and Article 43 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of three years and six months to twenty-two years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (or quasi-Rape, etc. against the disabled persons) in the judgment;

[Determination of Punishment] Sex Offenses, General Criteria, and Sex Offenses against Persons with Disabilities (At least 13 years of age), Type 4 (Rape)

[Decision of Recommendation] Basic Field

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six to nine years

(b) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes under paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment;

[Determination of type] Sex Offenses and Sex Offenses against Persons with Disabilities (At least 13 years of age), Type 2 (Indecent Act by Compulsion)

[Decision of Recommendation] Basic Field

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of two years and six months to five years

(c) Scope of the recommended sentence based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Six years to six years.

[In accordance with the order of a high limit of the scope of the sentencing guidelines, the crimes of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (referring to quasi-rape, etc. against disabled persons) against sexual intercourse on January 18, 2013 as indicated in the judgment of the court, and the crimes of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (referring to quasi-rape, etc. against disabled persons) against each sexual intercourse on January 19, 2013 as stated in the judgment, shall be deemed concurrent crimes, according to the order of high limit of the scope of the sentencing guidelines as stated in the judgment, and the multiple crimes shall be aggravated (the lower limit of the basic crimes shall be applied six years, which is the lower limit of the basic crimes, and the upper limit shall be 1/2 and 1/3 of the upper limit of the sentence in nine years, each of

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

Considering the fact that the Defendant induceds a disabled woman who is difficult to exercise his right to sexual self-determination due to intellectual disability to engage in sexual intercourse and indecent act by compulsion, however, is consistent with the attitude to avoid his responsibility, such as continuing to deny the crime, and the responsibility is attributable to the victim, and the victim does not recover from damage to the victim, and the victim shows a fatal response due to the crime of this case, and has undergone mental treatment and treatment, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it appears that the defendant did not exercise coercive power, such as assault and intimidation, against the victim in the crime of this case, the defendant still has no record of criminal punishment, the mother's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's

Parts of innocence

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of the above 2-A (the summary of the facts charged by the court below) and 3. This constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as that of the above 2-C (determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape, etc. against the disabled) under

Judges Shin Dong-han

Judge Lee associate-hoon

2) The prosecutor did not state Article 6(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 299 of the Criminal Act in his/her written application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment on November 11, 2014, but it is obvious that the omission was made in light of the contents of the changed facts charged.