The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The alleged defendant was not in a situation where the victim was unable to resist or resist due to mental disability at the time of sexual intercourse with the victim and is not so.

Even if the defendant did not have sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim's resistance or difficult situation.

Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances stated in the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”, and at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim was in a difficult situation to resist or resist to the extent that he could not exercise his right to sexual self-determination due to a mental disorder, and the Defendant was aware of such circumstances at that time

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the court below in comparison with the evidence legitimately adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion in this part is not accepted.

2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment regarding the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, and where the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the grounds for sentencing asserted by the prosecutor are deemed to have been sufficiently taken into account in the lower court’s determination of the sentence, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, since new materials for sentencing were not submitted to the

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as one defendant's age, sex, environment, method of crime, circumstances after crime, etc.