The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The defendant shall be treated for sexual assault for 300 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the crime of this case, the victim C cannot be deemed to have been unable to resist due to the intellectual disability, and the defendant was unaware of whether the victim was a intellectual disability.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on quasi-rape for the disabled, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of rape of the victim who is the disabled even though the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) Although the Defendant did not commit rape 56 No. 56 of the annexed crime list, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment and 300 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 8 of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (amended by Act No. 10261, Apr. 15, 2010) and Article 6 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11088, Nov. 17, 201) on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11088, Nov. 17, 201) on the ground that the victim was unable to resist due to intellectual disability, and that the defendant was unaware of the victim’s intellectual disability, the defendant is subject to the punishment prescribed in Article 297 or 298 of the Criminal Act.