The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of the legal principles on the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal [the misunderstanding of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with Persons with Disabilities)] did not prevent the Defendant from committing any crime in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with Persons with Disabilities). The Defendant’s crime in this part constitutes a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's crime against victim E as a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with Persons with Disabilities).

It is unfair that the punishment sentenced by the court below (3 years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of No. 1, and two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of No. 2) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the court below also asserted that the defendant is identical to the assertion of misunderstanding of the above facts, and the court below, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, the date and time stated in this part of the facts constituting the crime, that is, the victim made a consistent statement about the harm inflicted upon the victim at the same time and place, the defendant was going in the body of the victim, and the defendant was present at the scene where "I Ma, M, M," while the victim was living at the scene immediately after the crime of this case, and the defendant did not escape and did not return to the sick room, and the defendant did not return to the sick room even after the defendant was hospitalized at the time after the crime of this case was committed. Considering the following circumstances, the court below acknowledged that the defendant had attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim after suppressing the victim's resistance as stated in this part of the facts constituting the crime of this case, and tried to have sexual intercourse with the victim's clothes immediately after putting the victim's finger, but did not have the victim's right to know.