The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The victim does not constitute “a person in a situation where it is impossible or difficult to resist due to any mental disability” under Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”).

2) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was unable to resist or resist due to mental disability.

B. The Defendant, who voluntarily surrenders to the NA test by the police, was led to the confession of the instant crime on the first day when the investigation was conducted, should be recognized as self-denunciation.

(c)

The sentence of the court below (4 years of imprisonment) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, which found the fact that the victim constitutes “a person who has difficulty in resisting or resisting due to a mental disorder” (i) whether the victim falls under “a person who has difficulty in resisting

(1) On November 7, 1998, the victim was registered as a student of AA, and as a disabled person of Grade II with intellectual disability.

According to Article 2 (1) and 2 (1) and 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act (attached Table 1), a person with intelligence index between 35 and less than 50 may train simple activities in daily life, and a person who is able to have occupation without special skills without complicated supervision and assistance, if he/she is subject to a certain degree of supervision and assistance, falls under class 2 of the intellectual disability.

(2) According to the disability diagnosis written by a doctor AB on November 26, 2015, the victim’s intelligence index is 45, and the social maturity index is 35.

(3) The Defendant, along with his wife, operates a cafeteria with the name “AD” in the Gangwon-gun AC, and resides at the house located in the Gangwon-gun H which is immediately attached to the above cafeteria.

With the mother-childO on April 2016, the victim has been a director of the Jinsung-gun AE, and theO is "AF" in the above residence.