The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the victim and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the grounds for appeal, the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental health condition.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) the victim was under the influence of her sexual intercourse with the Defendant at the time of her sexual intercourse; (b) however, there was doubt that the victim was merely unable to memory the situation at the time of her temporary memory cellout; and (c) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not suffice to deem that the victim was in the state of mental disorder at the time of her sexual intercourse; and (a) there was no other evidence to prove otherwise; (a) the Defendant explained from the investigative agency to the lower court that there was no other evidence to prove that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of her sexual intercourse; (b) the specific circumstance leading up to the Defendant’s sexual intercourse; (c) the specific act committed by the victim; (d) the details of the statement; and (e) the detailed conversation made with the victim; and (e) the statement made without any allowance or allowance that may be unfavorable to her.

B. In light of the victim’s statements as to the situation at the time of the transfer of sexual intercourse and some inconsistencys between the recorded records, even if it is reliable that the victim’s statement to the effect that the situation at the time of the transfer would not be memory most at the time of the recording of sexual intercourse, this is defective.