The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

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

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the first ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the victim C was in a state which lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “disabled children and juveniles” or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal in light of the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court and related legal principles, the court below is justified in holding that the judgment of the court below cannot be a critical element in determining whether the defendant had a sexual intercourse with C with the victim merely with the fact that the defendant had a symptoms prior to donation based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds for appeal, there is no error of violating the logical and empirical rules and exceeding

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the victim C’s statement concerning the facts charged may be reliable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 5, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and prepared by the prosecution