must be viewed.

On the contrary, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

Judgment

In the indictment, the phrase “Seoul 10:21 May 26, 2019” appears to be a clerical error in the “Seoul 2019 May 26, 2019 :08:33 on the same day” and “15:0 on the same day”.

A. In light of the circumstance that the injured party left the Defendant’s car, the age and details of the Defendant and the injured party, the circumstance and content of the immediately preceding victim’s drinking, the victim’s failure to properly memory the situation at the time, and the fact that the victim cannot be seen to have made a false statement, etc., there is doubt as to whether “the Defendant did not commit the instant crime.”

B. However, in light of all the circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated at the original trial and the trial court, including the legal statement of the witness E (the victim who dranks with the victim at the time) of the party, “the victim at the time of the instant case was in an impossible state to resist, and the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by using the aforementioned statement.

The lower court’s judgment is justifiable to readily conclude, and the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

In particular, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant sufficiently proven that he/she had the intent to commit quasi-rape.

① According to CCTV images (Evidence Nos. 13) in which the victim’s walking surface was taken before the Defendant’s car was loaded, the victim cannot be deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol to a considerable extent at the time, and ② multi-pactical speech was taken, but the victim made a normal conversation with the Defendant immediately after the sex relationship.