The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (the defendant's case part) misjudgments the facts, and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") had sexual intercourse and physical contact with the victim under the agreement with the victim, and have used force.

The victim does not use the victim's intellectual disability.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the lower court on the part of the Defendant’s case of the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

It is improper for the court below to dismiss the prosecutor's request for attachment order.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts regarding the part of the Defendant’s case, the Defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the appeal.

In light of the facts and circumstances in the “determination on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion,” the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant, as the president of the company in which the victim was in existence, caused sexual intercourse and indecent conduct by infringing on the victim’s free will by taking advantage of fear that the victim, who was the intellectually disabled person having weak sexual self-determination, was sexually in violation of the victim’s freedom and by force, and showed a positive attitude toward the sexual relationship between the victim and the victim’s enjoying sexual intercourse.

Even if the defendant's act does not obstruct the recognition of sexual intercourse or indecent act with the victim who is a intellectually disabled person by force, the defendant's above assertion is rejected, and the defendant was convicted of the facts charged in this case.

Examining the records closely and closely, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant against the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is a person who employs intellectual disabled persons and allows them to work.