The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) by the Prosecutor and the person against whom the attachment order was requested is unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of Defendant A is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) committed a misunderstanding of facts, but there was no sex relation, and the victim was not in a state of failing to resist due to mental disorder at the time, and Defendant B was unaware of the mental disability of the victim.

Dob. The sentencing of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 피고인 B의 사실오인 또는 법리오해 주장에 대하여 ⑴ 원심의 판단 ㈎ 피해자 진술의 신빙성 여부 아래와 같은 사정에 의하면 피고인 B에 대한 이 사건 공소사실에 부합하는 피해자의 진술에 신빙성이 있다.

① The victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to this court that “The Defendant B was satisfed with the same satch and satisfed with the same satch as a vinyl house, and satisfing off the clothes.” The victim’s statement to the effect that Defendant B was towed by Defendant B.

In light of the victim's intellectual state, the overall contents of the statement do not seem to be consistent, specific, and different circumstances that make the statement in the main part of the statement to be false.

② In addition, Defendant B also acknowledges the fact of sexual indecent act. Considering the victim’s intellectual condition, the investigation process during the investigation process, and the victim’s attitude of statement in the court, it does not seem that the victim made a false statement even though the victim did not have sexual intercourse with Defendant B.

(3) An expert who analyzes statements in an investigative agency of a victim may be aware of the victim's identity as it is difficult to control the appraisal whenever it comes to the situation at the time of damage.