The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court determined that the victimized person cannot be deemed to have a disability to the extent that he/she could not exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination, and that the Defendant also attempted to commit an indecent act with awareness that the victimized person had such disability.

It is difficult to recognize that there is an indecent act against the disabled under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the accused committed an indecent act against the victim by force.

The decision was determined.

2. In light of the legislative history, text, etc. of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the requirement that the injured person should have an obstacle to the degree that he/she cannot exercise his/her right to sexual determination is required only under Article 6(4) of the same Act. In order to establish a crime of indecent conduct by force against the disabled under Article 6(3) of the same Act, which is the instant facts charged, the above requirement is not required, and there is a need to protect the injured person’s sexual self-determination right specifically.

In the case of this case, the victim is a person with a disability of grade 1 and grade 3 of intellectual disability, and therefore is a disabled person under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Disabled Persons

Defendant also knew that the victim was disabled.

In recognition, although the defendant falls under class 2 of intellectual disability, the defendant's intelligent level alone recognized that the damaged person constitutes an object to be protected under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Law.

It is reasonable to view it.

In addition, the defendant also recognized the part where the indecent act was committed without the victim's consent, and the defendant and the victim were only limited to three to four times until the crime was committed, and the victim consistently expressed that "the defendant does not refuse to leave the chest when he begins," and the victim expressed his intention to do so even.

The defendant is against the victim's will, as stated in ", witness G and H."