The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, as a friendly transport engineer affiliated with the Masung-gun located in Sungsung-gun, was aware of the fact that the victim C (the age of 15) who was aware of in the course of engaging in the taxi driving business, was unable to discern things or make decisions due to the 3rd grade disability in language and brain diseases, and was willing to have sexual intercourse with the victim C.

At the end of June, 2012 to July, 2012, the Defendant stated that the victim C would be able to take care of the surrounding area to the victim C, and when the victim was born to the taxi driving the Defendant, the human resources surrounding the reservoir with the price for the ambri in the ambri-gun, the victim C had sexual intercourse with the victim C at the back of the taxi.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 11-2(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012) provides that “disabled children and juveniles” subject to punishment for committing sexual intercourse with disabled children and juveniles, who are disabled persons under Article 2(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, are “children and juveniles aged 13 or older who have weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to physical or mental disability” as to “disabled children and juveniles under Article 2(1).”

The capacity to distinguish an object referred to in the instant provision refers to the ability to reasonably determine and determine the good and trial cost of an object, and the ability to determine an intention refers to the ability to control one’s act by determining the will according to the process of changing the object. Such ability to distinguish an object or make a decision is related to the ability to make a decision, and is not necessarily consistent with the perception or memory ability of fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do1328 delivered on August 14, 1990). The evidence duly adopted by the court below and the above.