The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be three years of imprisonment.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The Defendant asserts that, on the grounds of appeal, the victim was unaware of the fact that the victim was a person with intellectual disability at the time of appeal, and that the victim did not have a sexual intercourse with the victim.

The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. The lower court rejected this part of the Defendant’s assertion based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, such as the following: (a) it appears that the Defendant was frequently exposed to the victim’s home, and the Defendant could have easily known the fact that the victim was mentally disabled; and (b) the Defendant’s statement that he was sexually related with the Defendant was credibility of the victim’s statement, based on the following circumstances: (c) the lower court’s attitude of the victim’s statement in light of the victim’s attitude, expression, horse speculation, detention, and the ability to use words, etc.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in close comparison with the circumstances admitted by the court below, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. It is difficult to view otherwise even if I collected the results of the examination of evidence conducted by this court.

This part of the judgment of the court below is justified.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2. The Defendant and his family members agreed with the victim and the victim’s family members to use the defendant in the truth and wanting to take the measures against the defendant, when determining the unfair argument of sentencing was reached in the court.

This is an element to be newly considered in sentencing for the defendant.

In addition, the degree of force of the defendant's use of the victim is not relatively more severe, and it seems that his mistake is against the depth.