All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Victim AE (the age of 26) expressed the voice of the Defendant at the “AD” alcohol book, which led the Defendant to actively engage in sexual intercourse, such as: (a) misunderstanding of facts; (b) seeing that the Defendant had the voice in mind; (c) doing so in front of the nearest new line; and (d) drinking alcohol in the cooling cryp; and (c) putting the Defendant out of the clothes of the Defendant.

As such, the defendant only committed a sex relationship under the agreement with the victim, and at the time, the victim was not in an impossible state to resist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of law.

The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment of the second instance solely on the ground of the lower judgment’s unfair sentencing (as of November 27, 2017, the first trial date prior to the consolidation on November 30, 2017) and appealed against the lower judgment on the ground of unfair sentencing and unfair mental and physical weakness.

In addition, on March 6, 2018, the reasons for appeal were as follows: “The defendant has been receiving treatment of mental illness with ADHD and magnetic disorder, depression, and barriers for a long time, and has been diagnosed as having a intellectual disability 3rd degree of disability. The defendant committed a crime dynamicly without taking treatment of mental illness at the time of committing the crime as stated in the judgment of the second instance, and was in weak state with the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Although the above argument is asserted to the effect that “The above argument of mental and physical weakness cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal.”

In addition, even if examining ex officio, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was a disabled person of Grade 3 with intellectual disability, was receiving medical treatment for ADHD ex post facto disease since 2004, and was receiving hospital treatment from August 2012 for a considerable period of time, but the judgment of the court below of Grade 2 is recognized.