The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize that he had sexual intercourse with D with mental disability by force, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was known through C through C to the Defendant and on the Internet, and D is a person with a intellectual disability of Grade II with intellectual disability of 48 intellectual intelligence index.

On August 30, 2016, at F located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 12:0, 2016, the Defendant: (a) kiddd D with D while sitting in F, F, with D's hand, brought D's hand to the Defendant's sexual flag part; (b) kidddd with D's hand; and (c) kidd with D's entrance, and (d) kiddd with D, the Defendant brought D to the Defendant's house.

The Defendant, at around 14:45 on the same day, went in the residence of the Defendant, who was off his clothes, and gets off his clothes, at around 14:45 on the same day, and said that D does not refuse to do so.

As a result, he was exempted from D's her hand directly, laid off D's panty, laid off D's her panty, and sexual intercourse with D's upper body once.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse D with mental disability by force.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) in light of the circumstances, etc., such as ① the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant had a mental disability, solely with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

(2) In light of the circumstances described in the following sub-paragraph (2) above, the Defendant’s statement and evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that he/she has sexual intercourse with D by force, without reasonable doubt, in light of the fact that it is insufficient to view it and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

For reasons that it is difficult to see this case’s charges, the Defendant is innocent.