The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be three years of imprisonment.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) At the time of committing the instant allegation related to the impossibility of resisting, the victim did not have any mental disability, and the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s non-refluence status.

2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had mental and physical weakness due to mental retardation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant was made ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case before the court, and the prosecutor conducted a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (compacting with the disabled persons, etc.). Article 6(4) and (1) of the applicable Act provides that “Article 6(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes” is “Article 6(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes,” and Article 6(5) of the same Act provides that “Article 6(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of

B. As examined below, this court found the Defendant guilty of the modified facts charged. Accordingly, the Defendant’s “claim related to the status of resistance impossibility” is no content related to the modified facts charged, and thus, it does not render a separate judgment as to the grounds for appeal.

(c)

However, the defendant's argument of mental and physical weakness is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. According to the records of this case as to the defendant's argument of mental and physical weakness, the defendant seems to have a serious mental delay.

However, in full view of the background, means, circumstances, etc. of the instant crime, the Defendant’s decision to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.