The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of mock juror's gender, the resistance and intellectual disability of victim on punishment judgments in a sexual assault case, this study is designed with between subjects 2(resistance: do vs do not) X 2(intellectual disability: present vs absent). Participants, aged 20 to 59 eligible for jury duty nationwide, were presented with manipulated trial scenarios and narratives regarding the resistance and intellectual disability of victim. Subsequently, they were asked to provide judgments on guilty/not guilty, probability of guilt, sentencing, as well as to provide Korean Hostile Sexism ratings. Although there was no interaction effect between the victim resistance and intellectual disability of victim on the probability of guilt and sentencing, the probability of guilt was higher when resistance was present and when there was an intellectual disability. Additionally, sentencing was higher when there was an intellectual disability. The study findings indicated that female were more likely than male to render guilty verdicts. Further analysis revealed a sequential mediating effect between gender and sentencing judgments, mediated by hostile sexism ratings and judgment of consent to sexual intercourse. In other words, men had a higher level of hostile sexism ratings than women, and the higher hostile sexism ratings, the higher the degree of sexual consent. The higher the degree of sexual consent, the lower the punitive judgment.