All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The court below: (1) under unfavorable circumstances, the defendant, who is a child or juvenile and disabled victim, has induced a toilet with the knowledge that he/she is vulnerable to committing a crime due to intellectual disorder of severe pain, rape, taking the scene into a cell phone, etc.; (2) repeatedly aware that the defendant induced the victim that he/she should not be known to the son or mother of a special class for the day that he/she had committed in the victim; (30) sexual intercourse with the victim; (30) sexual intercourse with the victim in the toilet; (4) the defendant committed sexual intercourse with the victim; (3) the victim was sexually fluence; (4) the victim was suffering from a wound that cannot be a cleaning; and (4) the victim and the mother of the victim were blickly punished against the defendant; and (5) the defendant did not have any clear evidence that he/she could not obtain any favorable criminal punishment after gene analysis or digital evidence analysis; and (2) the defendant did not have any other evidence to prove that he/she was found to have been subject to criminal punishment for the victim.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.