The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The judgment against Defendant A is not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts did not have sexual intercourse with the victim E at the time and place stated in the facts of the crime at the time of the original adjudication, and the court below erred.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the victim E, the defendant B was acquitted of the defendant B even though the defendant B could sufficiently be found guilty of sexual intercourse with the victim E, and the court below erred of the fact.

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.

Defendant

The summary of the facts charged in this part of the judgment on the mistake of facts as to A is the victim E (Inn, F) with the overall intelligence index of less than 45 (not more than 45 in both language and intelligence in the same preparation), the social nature index (S Q 51 in the year of social age 7 years and 1 in the month of age 7), the time concept and order concept, and the recognition function is the mentally disabled person of Grade II with the intellectual disability of the mental retardation of the age of 5 to 6.

Defendant

A around April 208, at the “H” shop operated by the defendant living together with the defendant living together in Heung-gun G, Jeonnam-gun, 2008, the above victim, who had been suffering from her sexual intercourse, refers to the victim's awareness that he was unable to make sexual self-determination due to mental disorder as above, and "the victim was able to have sexual intercourse" and "the victim was 2,000 won in the reduction of 2,00 won," and she was sexual intercourse once with the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disability that the victim was unable to resist.

The direct evidence that can acknowledge the facts charged against the defendant in the judgment of the court below is due to the victim's statement, and the victim's statement is not sufficient to define the concept and number of times and so there is a somewhat limited and unclear point in the statement, but it can be known by the record.