All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles had the ability to recognize a person who is not the husband and a person who is not the husband, and when another person who is not the husband requests a sex relationship, the victim cannot be deemed to have been in a state of mental or physical disability or inability to resist. In addition, the Defendant did not have a state of mental or physical disability or failure to resist.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, first, we examine whether the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or non-performance.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (a) the victim was diagnosed with Maz-type dementia at F Hospital or G Hospital from May 2009, and was under drug treatment; (b) the victim was unable to resist his family due to dementia; and (c) the victim was opening a door and going out of the house without her family; and (d) the victim’s husband E was unable to visit the victim when she went out of the house; and (e) the victim got out of the house without her family; and (e) the victim’s husband E was unable to take out the victim when she went out of the house; and (e) the victim was unable to take out a visit and went out of the room at the time of the instant case; and (e) the victim was unable to resist the Defendant even if she was forced to commit an indecent act due to dementia at the time of the instant case, and was aware of the fact that she was unable to resist due to dementia.