성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(장애인강간)
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court by the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the state of disability of a victim of mistake of facts, etc., the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”)
(2) Although the court below found the victim's disability at the time of the crime of this case to have been aware of the victim's disability at the time of the crime of this case, it was erroneous in the judgment below that acquitted the victim of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with the disabled).
3. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. Around July 2014, the summary of the facts charged against the acquittal portion: (a) the Defendant knew of the fact that the victim C (Intelligent Index 64, Social Age 10.2) of Grade III (Age 15) with intellectual disability 3 (Age 64, Social Age 10.2) was placed at the home and that there was no mental disability of the victim; and (b) had sexual intercourse with the victim at his/her home after leaving the house; and (c) he/she had sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s residence of Dozzud 304 at the original city.
On July 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 07:00, the Defendant: (b) prevented the victim from resisting; (c) prevented the victim from resisting by putting the clothes of the victim out by creshing the victim; (d) preventing the victim from shouldering; and (e) preventing the victim from shouldering the victim’s body; and (e) preventing the victim from shouldering the victim’s body.
Accordingly, the defendant raped the victim with mental disability.
B. The lower court’s determination on the lower court and the lower court: (i) the victim’s attitude on video recordings;