The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment for five years.

. Defendants:

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) In light of the fact that the victim of misunderstanding of facts states his/her gender at the time of sexual intercourse with the Defendant in detail, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts that the lower court determined that the Defendant had sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s intellectual disability and state of non-performance according to the state

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes by misunderstanding the legal principles shall be interpreted to mean the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult, separately from the case of mental and physical disability. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in determining that the victim was in a state of failing to resist solely based on the circumstance that the victim had sexual intercourse with two Defendant, and the victim’s statement that the victim was under the influence of alcohol. In light of the circumstances before and after sexual intercourse, the circumstances leading up to sexual intercourse, and the victim’s actions after sexual intercourse, etc., the victim cannot be deemed to have sexual intercourse with the Defendants at the time of the instant case.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants did not know that the Defendants were unable to resist at the time of gender relationship with the Defendants on the grounds of the following circumstances. The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants did not know that there was a intellectual disability.

(A) The victim is 15 years of age, who was judged as the third degree of mental retardation disability.