The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding [the part concerning the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes in the Judgment of the court below] The defendant did not know that the injured person was the deaf-mute, and was sexual intercourse under agreement with the injured party and did not exercise power as stated in the facts charged. However, the court below convicted all of the facts charged on the ground of its stated reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged on the ground that, on the basis of the circumstances acknowledged by the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence in its holding, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, knew that the victim C was a disabled person with a hearing impairment and intellectual disability, by exercising the same power as the above facts constituting a crime, was sufficiently recognized

Examining such judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, various circumstances unfavorable to the defendant (each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant) shown in the court below and the trial proceedings at the court below (the crime of this case committed by the defendant is committed in the same manner as the facts constituting the crime in the court below's decision, and instead, it is even aware that the victim C is a person with hearing disability or social adaptation ability and intellectual disability, thereby moving the