The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and incomplete hearing that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim.

Defendant did not recognize that the victim was a disabled person.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant alleged that there is no sexual intercourse between the victim and the defendant in the judgment of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and incomplete hearing to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

As to this, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the victim's statement supporting the crime of this case, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court of the court below, had sexual intercourse with the victim at the defendant's office as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, on the ground that its credibility exists.

(1) A victim made a relatively detailed statement at an investigative agency as follows:

The Commission asked the victim whether or not the defendant is living in Maart, the victim was off his clothes at the defendant's house, the victim was exempted from his clothes, and the victim was laid off from his clothes, and then inserted the defendant's sexual organ into the part of the victim's sound.

The defendant was put in the negative part of the victim, “The defendant was suffering from the sex of the defendant.” The defendant is often engaged in the pain of the victim by inserting his sexual organ into the negative part of the victim.

② There is a concrete statement on the content of conversation with the Defendant and a unique description that is difficult to see that the victim with a intellectual disability 2 was sent with false experience without direct experience.

In addition, the injured party is divided into the damaged part by F and the damaged part by Defendant, and stated that F was the date of the commission of the crime on November 12, 2013, and that F was "the injured party was in the negative part of the injured party," and on the other hand, the date of the crime by Defendant.