The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not know that the victim was a person with mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime. ② The victim was not aware that he was a person with mental disability; ③ The Defendant did not use a deceptive scheme by force against the victim; ③ did not inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s negative part; ④ The lower court, even though having been in a state of mental disorder due to obscisation, did not err in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order, 7 years of disclosure and notification order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Whether the defendant was unaware of the victim's mental disability by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim's recognition ability is merely a level of 7 to 8 years old and above, and ii) the defendant was sufficiently aware of the victim's mental disability at the time of committing the crime of this case in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim was physically aware of the victim's mental disability at the time of committing the crime of this case; (b) whether the defendant used a deceptive scheme against the victim; (c) whether the defendant used a deceptive scheme against the victim; and (d) whether the defendant was in violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (the crime of rape with juveniles, etc. refers to the sufficient force to restrain the victim's free will; and (e) whether the victim is tangible or intangible; and (e) whether it is possible to use the victim's social and political status or rights; and (e) whether the victim used the type or status of the offender.