The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the legal principles of the grounds for appeal, the victim has mental disorders to the extent that he/she cannot exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination due to lack of recognition ability, judgment ability, etc. due to intellectual disability 3 level, and the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of such mental disorders that the victim is unable to resist or resist due to such mental disorders.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if the victim was unable to resist or resist due to mental disorder, it is difficult to recognize that the victim was in a difficult state to resist or resist.

However, according to each statement by the victim and the defendant, the victim resisted the defendant that the victim " will only be good," and by force, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she has sexual intercourse with the disabled person by force.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case without exercising the right of explanation as to this, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

With respect to the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor shall keep the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and the name of the offense in the preliminary case shall be “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (compact, etc. of Persons with Disabilities).” Article 6(5) of the applicable Act applies to “Article 6(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes,” and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts charged as “the preliminary facts charged,”

Therefore, although there is a change in the scope of adjudication, the prosecutor's ground of appeal is still subject to the judgment of this court.

The summary of the judgment of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged and the non-trial argument is the same as the main facts charged in the attached Form of the main facts charged.

The court below's decision.