A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning the facts charged in preliminary charge) did not have been in the state of her ability to resist due to drinking at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not contain any physical part of the victim’s sexual intercourse, such as fingers, etc., but did not have any error of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in finding the Defendant guilty of quasi-similar rape

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the prosecutor’s statement of the victim of mistake of facts (the part concerning the facts charged in the primary charge which is not guilty) and the evidence of DNA analysis, etc., the defendant can be found guilty of having sexual intercourse with the victim who has been under the influence of alcohol by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of facts that the court below found the defendant's act guilty of quasi-rape and not guilty of quasi-rape, which is the primary charge.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case.

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in the third part of the judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the conjunctive charges, on the ground that, at the time of the instant case, the victim was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to resist, and the Defendant was able to recognize the fact of quasi-rape by inserting part of his body, such as fingers, etc., due to the victim’s sexual intercourse in the state

(2) Various circumstances presented by the court below in its judgment;