The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) recognized that the victim was the intellectually disabled at the time of committing the instant crime as the victim’s behavior, age difference between the defendant and the victim, the victim’s intellectual disability status, the victim’s sexual experience, and the situation after committing the instant crime, etc., even though the Defendant’s act constitutes sufficient force to suppress the victim’s free will, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. From May 2017 to July 2017, the Defendant: (a) 2017, the Defendant: (b) had a victim Category 2 (Intelligent Index 48, 10 years of age, 10 months of social age, 53.16, 53.16, Qu 45-55); (c) had four persons, including the victim, engaged in joint hosting at the cafeteria located in Lighting-si; and (d) had a victim, who had a physical disability in the process, she first met the victim; and (d) had been aware that the victim had a physical disability in the victim’s appearance, embling, and mixing the victim.

After that, at around 20:40 on November 24, 2017, the Defendant received contact from the victim, and around 22:00 on the same day, when drinking together with the victim, and around 22:00 on the E-building F of Maspon, the Defendant told the victim to have sexual intercourse with the victim by using the victim’s intellectual disorder, and stated that “a person is going to engage in dial-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-the-job,” and the victim said that “the victim would go to go to dial-a-a-the-job,” and the victim called that “the victim would go to show a show.”