The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case against which the defendant was found guilty and the part of the case for which the request to attach an attachment order was filed, and there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request to attach an attachment order was

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) In light of the fact that the victim acquired a driver’s license of a motor vehicle around May 2016, and graduated from the education of young children and worked as a teacher of a child-care center, the victim did not have a mental disorder to the extent that he/she could not exercise his/her right to make a decision, other than a simple intellectual disability, and the victim did not have any mental disorder to the extent that he/she could not resist, and the Defendant did not recognize that there was a mental disorder to the extent that he/she could not exercise his

2) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse or forced indecent act with the victim by force.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 7 years imprisonment and 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 6(4) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) is applicable to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012).