The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the case, misunderstanding of legal principles) and relevant evidence, it is recognized that the victim was in a difficult state of resistance due to mental disorder at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) recognized such circumstance, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim had sexual intercourse by using it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, acquitted this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination of the accused case

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is serving as public interest service personnel at C (special schools for intellectual disability students) and divided conversations between victim D (18 years of age) who is the first-year student in junior college curriculum at the above school and smartphone printer E, and the Defendant was willing to have sexual intercourse with the victim with the knowledge that the victim was in a difficult state of resistance, such as failing to properly express his intention to refuse another’s request due to intellectual disability.

At around 12:40 on July 12, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant, committed sexual intercourse one time with the victim who was under the victim’s care, f apartment, 104 1503, a F apartment, 1503, and went off the clothes of the victim, let the victim off the clothes of the victim, cut off the clothes of the victim, and sound “nickly”.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of his state of difficulty in resistance due to mental disability.

B. In full view of the legal principles as stated in the judgment and the detailed facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the prosecutor, the lower court, without any reasonable doubt, proven that the victim was in a difficult situation due to mental disability to the extent that the victim could not actually express and exercise his/her sexual self-determination at the time of the instant sex relationship.