The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles fall short of a general level of intellectual ability, the court below determined that the defendant's act falls under Article 8 of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof, despite difficulties in deeming it as class 2 of intellectual disability, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the absence of any evidence to support that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim at the time stated in the facts charged except the defendant's statement constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules on the reinforcement of confession.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, first of all, as to the assertion of violation of the rules of confession reinforcement, the court below examined the police statements made by the victim who consented to evidence, and argued that the victim's statement recorded in the CD was inadmissible because the victim's cross-examination was not conducted in the court (the defendant's statement made by the victim was not admissible because the victim's cross-examination was not conducted against the victim. However, in Article 26 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, where the victim is under 16 years of age or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to any physical or mental disability, the victim's statement and the process of the investigation shall be taken and preserved with a video recording device such as a video recorder. The victim's statement recorded in such video recording can be admitted as evidence regardless of the cross-examination of the defendant if the authenticity is acknowledged. Thus, the above argument that the victim's statement made in such video recording is inadmissible because the defendant