A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, the victim did not have been able to resist, and thus, was naturally sexual intercourse with the Defendant, and there was no intention to quasi-rape in the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. This decision of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Criminal Procedure Act adopts the principle of substantial direct examination as one of the elements of the principle of public trial-oriented trial that the formation of a conviction conviction against the substance of a criminal case ought to be based on a trial in court.

This is because the judge can form accurate convictions on the case by directly investigating original evidence in court and give the defendant an opportunity to directly state his/her opinion on original evidence, thereby finding substantial truth and realizing fair trial.

The court shall ensure that the above substantial principle of direct cross-examination is fully realized in the court of first instance, which is the principle procedure in which parties’ allegations and evidence are examined, focusing on the court in the process of criminal proceedings and the trial process.

When determining the credibility of the testimony after the first instance court conducted the witness examination procedure, it is necessary to assess the credibility of the testimony considering all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement, as well as whether it conforms to the rationality, logic, and empirical rule of the content itself or other evidence.

On the other hand, the appellate court's credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance.