All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, we can see it together.

The crime of this case was committed by a victim of intellectual disability 3 who does not reach the level of 10 years and 6 months of age 19 at the time of committing the crime, and was sexual intercourse by force over twice in a way of sexual intercourse with the victim by witnessing that the victim was frightly in the defendant's home at the time of committing the crime, and the victim was sexual intercourse by force. It is highly likely that the crime was committed by a person with a strong net disability whose defense capability against the outside significantly falls is the object of resolving sexual desire.

It is the reason for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the victim suffered the victim's mental and physical shock is also reasonable, and the victim also wishes to punish the defendant.

On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant's difficulty in daily workers, the health of the defendant is not good, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, the time when the crime is committed, and the depth of the crime.

In addition, considering all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance before and after the commission of the crime, various factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings, and the scope of the applicable sentences of this case (at least two years and six months of imprisonment) and the scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, it is not determined that the Defendant’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s above assertion are without merit.

The lower court stated “Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes” as the basis of the provision on order to complete a program in the application of statutes, but the current law stipulates the time limit from 300 hours to 500 hours.