A. (1) The court below found the defendant guilty of quasi-rape by misunderstanding the facts, even though the defendant only has a sex relationship under the agreement with the victim of misunderstanding of facts, and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim who was in a state of failing to resist due to alcohol.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of a crime as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) even if the defendant knew of the fact that the victim is a "juvenile", and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. (i) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by clearly explaining the Defendant’s assertion and its decision in detail, with the title of the “Determination on the Defendant and Defense Counsel’s

Article 299 of the Kenya provides that a person who has sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the person’s mental or physical condition to resist shall be punished as the same as the crime of rape under Article 297 of the Criminal Act. Here, “the state of resistance impossibility” means the case where psychological or physical resistance is absolutely impossible or considerably difficult due to reasons other than the defect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do2001, Apr. 23, 2009; 98Do3257, May 26, 2000). The intention of the crime of quasi-rape is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intention, but it is sufficient to have dolusent intent.

In light of the above legal principles, other than the circumstances explained by the court below, the following circumstances are duly admitted and examined by the court below.