1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years;

3. Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (five years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant with intellectual disability (class 3 of intellectual disability, intelligence index 72), and the victim, who is a child or juvenile having weak ability to discern things or make decisions, has repeatedly committed sexual intercourse on seven occasions over seven months, and the victim was under fourteen years of age at the time of the instant damage.

The victim has committed the first crime against the victim, who was living together with the defendant's father and wife, and the defendant continued to commit the same crime to meet his or her sexual satisfaction after having committed the first crime against the victim, who was living together with his or her father and became aware that the victim could not respond properly.

The Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim in a space where his/her father and wife had sexual intercourse, and did not have her family sexual intercourse by using a female self-help organ or attempting to give anusal intercourse against the aged female victim, and committed a planned and active crime, such as by burning the victim who does not intend to leave the Defendant’s home into his/her family, and sexual intercourse with the victim before the victim’s home.

In light of the details and methods of the instant crime, the age of the victim, the legal interests of the victim, and the degree of damage, etc., the nature of the instant crime is not only good but also heavy.

The crime of this case is likely to be adversely affected not only by considerable mental suffering but also by forming sexual identity and values in the future in the growth process.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake, and shows his attitude to repent his mistake.

It seems that the degree of intellectual disability of the victim is very severe, and it seems that the defendant did not recognize the fact that the victim has intellectual disability at the time of preventing the first crime.

On the other hand, it is a special person in the sentencing guidelines for sex crimes.