The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by prosecutors

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant was aware of the fact that “the victim has a mental disability” before committing the instant crime.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the disabled on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

B. Determination 1) The lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that he had a mental disability at the time of the instant case,” based on various circumstances as indicated in its holding. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion in this part is without merit. 2) In particular, in recognizing “the mental disability of a victim who is not a transplant,” inter alia, the Defendant and the victim were very short, and the contents of the conversation were simple, (i) the circumstance where it is deemed that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s condition, and (ii) the content of the answer recorded in the video recordings, the victim’s attitude toward the investigator, the victim’s statement, etc., and (iii) the analysis of the disabled’s statement and the victim’s statement can not easily find “the victim’s mental disability” to the effect that it could not have any special problem in terms of the victim’s speech-language ability or concept of communication, etc.

In addition, ① immediately after the instant crime is committed, the victim spawns the Defendant’s hand.