The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

For the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, although the victim was unable to fully exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination with the intellectual disabled

Even if the victim had an ability to express his or her opinion to the extent that he or she does not want to do so, the victim was in a situation where the victim was unable to resist or resist due to a mental disorder under Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (the claimant for the preliminary observation order; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") to be guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the victim cannot be deemed a quasi-rape in a situation where mental disability makes it difficult to resist or resist due to the mental disability, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 6 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (7 years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, and order to observe protection) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the victim’s statement related to the facts charged in this case, and the victim’s behavior immediately after the occurrence of the case, the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts as to the facts charged in this case (the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below) can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant inserted the victim’s sexual organ into the victim’s sound book and

Nevertheless, the court below recognized only the establishment of quasi-rape for the disabled and judged not guilty of the quasi-rape for the disabled. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of quasi-rape against the disabled person’s sexual self-determination of the disabled person.