The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts did not have a sexual relationship with the victim.

Moreover, it was not revealed that the victim was a disabled person, and the defendant did not observe the victim for a long time, and the defendant did not know that the victim was a disabled person.

The victim's statement against this is not reliable because its contents are very complicated and there is no arbitrativeness.

Even so, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges (the Defendant, in the statement of grounds of appeal or supplement of reasons for appeal, has violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Act in the lower judgment.

repeatedly asserts.

However, at the trial date of the first instance court, the defendant and the defense counsel have arranged the reasons for appeal as facts mistake and sentencing unfairly.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the above provision is examined to the extent that supplements the assertion of misunderstanding of facts. (B) The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment and the completion of 80 hours of sexual assault treatment programs) which is unfair for sentencing is too unreasonable, and the amount of the punishment is determined unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact (which violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Litigation Act in the process of adoption and examination of such evidence)

According to the judgment of the court below, all of the circumstances recognized in the "2. Judgment" among the "Judgment of the defendant and defense counsel" not exceeding 3 pages of the judgment of the court below are justified.

In full view of these circumstances, the part of the facts charged that the Defendant recognized that the victim had sexual intercourse twice and that the victim was in a situation where it is difficult to exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination due to mental disability at the time of such sexual intercourse can be acknowledged without reasonable doubt.

Therefore, this conclusion is followed.