All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The victim claiming the misunderstanding of the facts regarding the acquitted portion is a person with intellectual disability 2nd degree of the intellectual disability, and thus has no ability to consent to the movement of residence for the purpose of sexual intercourse. In order for the defendant to take the victim's house into his/her house, he/she shall obtain consent from the guardian, etc.

of the corporation.

In addition, since one victim had no right to make a sexual self-determination due to the above severe disorder, and thus, the defendant's sexual intercourse with the victim constitutes quasi-rape of persons with disabilities.

However, the lower court acquitted the victimized person of the charge of attracting sexual intercourse among the facts charged in the instant case and violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape of Persons with Disabilities) on the ground that the victimized person consented to the recognition of the victimized person as the principal of the Defendant’s house, and that the victimized person

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s judgment’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, that the victim consented to the defendant with a sense of care for the defendant and living together with the defendant, and that the victim was able to leave the defendant at any time, and thus, the victim was under his physical real control.

In full view of the circumstances, including the fact that it is difficult to evaluate the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the fact that the defendant, by deceiving or treating the victim as a means of deception, had the victim escape from a free living relationship, and had the victim moved under his/her or a third party's factual control, was not proven to the extent that there

In view of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the inducement of sexual intercourse.

another.