준강간미수
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) although there was an act of a misunderstanding of facts against the victim’s clothes, the victim did not have been in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist; and (b) the Defendant merely committed the above act with the consent of the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of attempted quasi-rape of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts. (b) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the case of unfair sentencing, the sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and forty hours of taking the course of sexual assault treatment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the Prosecutor, it is unreasonable to exempt the above sentence imposed by the lower court from the disclosure notification order, as well as too unfluent.
2. Determination
A. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the effect that this part of the grounds for appeal are alleged in the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, determined as follows: “At the time of the instant case, the victim was placed in a state of failing to resist due to excessive drinking and the surface of the water; and the Defendant had attempted to engage in sexual intercourse by taking advantage of such state of the victim; and it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s assertion was dismissed
In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below accepted the jury participation trial's unanimous conviction opinion and convicted the charge of attempted quasi-rape of this case on the ground of its stated reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to attempted quasi-rape of this case.