The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (7 years of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant committed the crime of this case by rapeing her friendship with mental disability (class 2 of intellectual disability). In light of the following circumstances: (a) since the defendant, who is in a position to rear and protect the victim in a sound manner as a person with parental authority of the victim, takes the victim with mental disability as the object of his/her sexual desire, the crime and the nature of the crime are very poor; (b) the victim seems to have suffered a sense of sexual humiliation and mental impulse that makes it difficult for him/her to recover throughout his/her life; and (c) the victim is still suffering from suffering from the crime of this case, such as having been hospitalized with frequent symptoms, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe punishment equivalent to his/her responsibility.

On the other hand, the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and seriously reflects it, that the defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime, that he had a imprisoned growth period due to the death of the mother in green, and that the present health status was not decent are the circumstances that should be favorable or considered to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the following conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive or background of the offense, means and method of the offense, contents and result of the offense, the circumstances after the offense, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled as follows.

[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court.