The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of imprisonment, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant showed the same attitude of assaulting the victim, who is a disabled person of Grade II with intellectual disability at middle school and was in a middle school, during the night, and refused to perform the act of assaulting the victim's sexual intercourse, and made the victim be frighten by threatening the victim's sexual organ, and made it difficult for the victim to resist by assaulting and threatening the victim on the alleyway after about four months thereafter, and forced the victim to go out of the clothes of the victim, and then inserted his sexual organ into the text of the victim's resistance, thereby committing each of the crimes of this case.

It is very poor in light of the fact that the defendant was aware that the victim was a intellectual disabled person, repeated crimes against the victim, and the circumstances and methods of each crime.

The victim seems to have suffered serious sexual humiliations and physical and mental shocks and pains due to each crime of the defendant.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, when the defendant was in the trial, all of the crimes of this case are recognized, and his mistake is divided. After the judgment of the court below, the victim expressed his intention that he does not want the punishment of the defendant under the agreement with the defendant. The victim's parents wanted to have the preference against the defendant, and the victim and the victim expressed their intention not to punish the defendant again in response to the investigation of sentencing at the sentencing, and the defendant expressed his intention not to punish the defendant. It is favorable to the defendant that the defendant was the first offender who had no power to commit each of the crimes of this case before

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the means and results of the crime.