All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) that declared by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty portion in the judgment of the court below) the victim was unable to make a proper statement about detailed matters, such as the time, method, etc. of sexual intercourse, and there are differences between the victim’s statement and other evidence, but considering that the victim’s level was Grade 3 with intellectual disability 1 Q 46, and social age 8, it appears that he/she made a sufficient statement about the damage caused by himself/herself, and its credibility is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the charge of quasi-rape of this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that it is difficult to credibility this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, considering the following: (a) the victim’s statement appears to correspond to the facts charged in its reasoning is a form of responding to questions induced by the investigative agency; (b) the probability that the victim’s detailed description of the crime was sent without actual experience due to the lack of concrete or ambiguous description; (c) the probability was not consistent; (d) the objective circumstance acknowledged by the evidence or the date indicated in this part of the facts charged is inconsistent; and (e) there is a doubt as to the motive of the statement.

Upon examining the record, the decision of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the lower court, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant and favorable to the Defendant, assessed a fine of KRW 10 million.