The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the victim’s intellectual disability at the time of committing the crime.

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to brain death, intellectual disability, etc.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (7 years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order) is too unreasonable.

[On the other hand, when an appeal is filed against a judgment on the case of the defendant, the judgment on the case of the claim for attachment order of the location tracking device is deemed to have been appealed (Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc.). However, since the court below dismissed the prosecutor's request for attachment order, the defendant has no interest in appeal regarding the part of the judgment below

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant recognized the victim’s intellectual disability at the time of committing the crime and sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim has sexual intercourse and has inflicted bodily injury by using the victim’s intellectual disability, and (b) as seen in the foregoing, the Defendant cannot be viewed otherwise solely on the ground that there was brain dyssis on the part of the Defendant

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just and there is no violation of law as the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The victim was born with the intellectual disability in W, and was diagnosed as Grade 2 with a intellectual disability around the time of the juvenile’s birth. On December 24, 2015, the perpetrator was diagnosed as a mentally disabled person of Grade 2 with a intellectual disability around March 29, 2016, and was determined as a disabled person of Grade 2 with a mental disability around December 29, 2016.

The victim is a family member (the director, the mother, the assistant principal, and the plaintiff) and graduated from the university due to the care of the family (the university researcher), but the recognition and development of the university and the lack of sociality.