A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) The victim did not have a mental disorder to the extent that he/she could not exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination, and there was no perception of the defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In determining whether the victim D, who is misunderstanding of facts, has the ability to exercise a substantial sexual self-determination right, the following should be fully taken into account: (a) the victim’s intellectual ability is a person with a relatively low mental disability.

Although the above victims have shown negative attitudes, such as the glaging of snow at the time of the case, it is because the victim did not have any resistance at the time of the case because the victim did not have the ability to exercise the right to sexual self-determination.

2) There are no special circumstances to exempt the Defendant from disclosure disclosure notification order.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts by the defendant and prosecutor

A. 1) On the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim E (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) in light of the circumstances and relevant legal principles that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each evidence duly adopted and investigated, and that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim E, and that the victim at the time was in a situation that it was impossible or considerably difficult to resist against the Defendant on the grounds that the victim was unable to exercise his right to sexual self-determination, and that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim

In view of the above facts charged, the court found the defendant guilty.

2) The lower court’s judgment and the lower court’s judgment were duly adopted and investigated as stated in its reasoning.