All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legislative purport, amendment history, text, etc. of Article 6(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established when a physically or mentally disabled person makes indecent act by force. It does not require any obstacle to the extent that the victim should be specially protected as in the judgment of the court below. Even if the crime of indecent act by force against the disabled under Article 6(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is interpreted as having a disability to the extent that the victim should be specially protected in order to establish the crime of indecent act by force against the disabled under Article 6(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, in light of the degree of disability, age, and circumstances leading to the crime in this case, the victim shall be deemed as having a disability to the extent that the exercise of the sexual self-determination right by force should be specially protected, and even if the defendant sufficiently aware the degree and condition of the victim's disability and the crime of indecent act by force against the defendant.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 6 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11088, Nov. 17, 201) regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, “A person has a state of failing to resist due to physical or mental disability.”