Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested by the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) did not rape the victim on August 7, 2016; and (b) at the time, the victim attempted to engage in the similar act for the restoration of the relationship with the Defendant, but the Defendant did not

The Defendant did not rape the victim on September 4, 2016, and at the time, the victim attempted to have sexual intercourse for the recovery of the relationship with the Defendant, but did not have sexual intercourse by refusing to do so.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of rape and similar rape among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant with mental or physical disorder shall be mitigated inasmuch as he/she was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (20 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course, 5 years of order to disclose, 30 years of order to attach an electronic device) is too unreasonable.

In light of the language and text, amendment history, etc. of Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “sexual Crimes”), it is established when rape of a disabled person under Article 6(1) of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes Act, and the crime of similarity with a disabled person under Article 6(2) of the same Act is committed when rape of a “person with a physical or mental disability,” and there is no need for an obstacle to the degree of special protection of the exercise of the right to sexual self-determination.

The interpretation of the legal principles by the court below is reasonable.

Even if the victim had a disability to the extent that it could seriously interfere with the ability to cope with or defend against sexual crimes, such as having paralysis on the left side and on the bridge.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged of this case.