1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the primary facts of rape, violence or intimidation should be such to the extent that it is considerably difficult to resist the victim’s resistance. Whether such violence or intimidation was significantly difficult to resist the victim should be determined by taking full account of all the circumstances such as the contents and degree of the relevant violence and intimidation exercising force, the circumstances leading up to exercising force, the relationship with the victim, and the circumstances at the time of the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2608, Sept. 21, 199; 2007Do3951, Jul. 26, 2007). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to see that the victim’s statement alone alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant raped the victim due to an assault that was difficult to resist as stated in the primary facts charged, even if the circumstances with sexual intercourse are acknowledged against the victim’s explicit intent.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above measures of the court below are justified and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the conjunctive facts charged

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (compact, etc.) against which the Defendant, added as an ancillary charge, has sexual intercourse with the victim by exercising the victim’s power, the lower court held that there was evidence of employment, i.e., a space between the Defendant and the victim, which became aware of through hosting, and the process of going to the telecom with the victim’s free decision-making by the victim.