The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 8(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”) provides that a person aged 19 years or older punished for engaging in sexual intercourse with a disabled child or juvenile, and that “disabled child or juvenile” is a disabled child or juvenile under Article 2(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to physical or mental disability.”

“A capacity to distinguish a private matter” as referred to in the legal provision of this case refers to the ability to reasonably determine and determine the person’s good faith and vision, and “a capacity to determine a will” refers to the ability to control one’s act by determining his/her will as a different person depending on the person’s change. Such capacity to distinguish a private matter or make a decision is related to the person’s ability to distinguish a private matter and that is not necessarily consistent with the person’s perception or memory ability.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11323 Decided January 29, 2014). Meanwhile, whether a child or juvenile lacks the above capacity can be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the opinion of an expert but also the objective evidence, such as the statement of a third party regarding his/her ordinary speech and behavior, and the details of the child or juvenile’s speech and behavior related to the facts charged. In such a case, it is sufficient to deem that the child or juvenile of the pertinent age is lower than his/her ordinary ability and thereby, is insufficient to exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the above legal principles.