The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too uncomparably unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment is too uncomparably uncompared and unfair.

In addition, the prosecutor asserts that the court below's failure to issue an disclosure notification order and a lecture completion order is unfair.

Judgment

The Defendant has sexual intercourse with a victim who worked in a cafeteria in the neighborhood by using that victim has intellectual disability, and the method of committing the crime is planned by and interviewing the victim, such as inducing the victim to drink and singing together, and taking him/her into his/her house, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are very poor. Therefore, the Defendant may not be punished by imprisonment for a heavier sentence.

However, the fact that the defendant did not exercise violence in the course of committing the crime, that he did not want the punishment of the defendant, that he did not want the punishment of the defendant in consultation with the victim and his guardian, that the court below denied the crime at the court below without any history of crime, but did not recognize his mistake and reflect it in the trial. As seen thereafter, the crime of this case is not the current sentencing guidelines but the sentencing guidelines which was in force at the time of committing the crime of this case is applied to the crime of this case, and the latter is sentenced to a punishment that deviates from the scope of the actual recommended punishment because the court below applied the current guidelines (it cannot be deemed that there are special circumstances to deviate from the sentencing guidelines), and in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing that points this out is improper because it is unfair because it is too inappropriate, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

According to Article 16 of the former Sexual Violence Punishment Act, where the execution of sentence is suspended, an order to attend a course may be issued, and where a sentence is imposed, an order to attend a course or order to complete a program shall be issued.