준강간
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from July 2015, was employed as an employee of the oral store located in H in the Ha, the Defendant became aware of the Victim J (the age of 19) who was employed in the miscellaneous store located in the above department store.
On October 22, 2015, the Defendant knew of the fact that the victim, while receiving and sending K message, was drinking in the “M” drinking house (hereinafter “M” in this case) located in the Yanan City, with his son, and asked the victim to talk with the victim on the phone at around 23:05 on the same day, that the victim “the fluor who has completed the drinking site upon the completion of the drinking site” was called “the fluor,” and that on the same day, around 23:52, the victim was fluored on the roads of the NAF near the said drinking house.
As above, Defendant 1 had the mind to have sexual intercourse with the victim, knowing that the victim was unable to walk properly while under the influence of alcohol, and, on October 23, 2015, around 00:15, around October 23, 2015, Defendant 1 left the victim’s home with the Defendant’s dwelling at Oud 307, Oud 307, and went off the victim’s clothes under the influence of alcohol, and had sexual intercourse with another victim who was on the body of the victim once.
2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they had sexual intercourse with the victim by agreement.
It was true that the injured was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but the damage was not under the influence of resistance.
3. The judgment of this Court
A. Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has sexual intercourse or commits an indecent act by taking advantage of a person’s mental or physical loss or incompetence status shall be punished as the crime of rape or indecent act by force under Articles 297 and 298 of the Criminal Act.
Here, the state of impossibility of resistance is called
Article 297 and Article 298 of the Criminal Code refer to cases where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to reasons other than loss of mental or physical nature (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2001, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, in the case where the establishment of the crime of quasi-rape is at issue, the defendant is at issue.