A. The victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles did not have a state of mental or physical disability or inability to resist at the time of time, and even if otherwise, the defendant did not have any intention to have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim'

B. The lower court’s sentencing (including the order of acceptance and restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is as follows: (i) the statement from the investigative agency of the victim to this court is specific and consistent; (ii) the defendant and the victim have made detailed statements about the situation at the time of the crime; and (iii) there is no special circumstance to develop the relationship between the defendant and the victim under the agreement between the defendant and the victim; (iv) it is difficult to understand that the victim was sexual intercourse under the agreement with the defendant that the victim was 17 years old and older than 16 years old; and (iii) in light of the friendly attitude against the defendant who shown the victim before the crime of this case, the victim did not appear to have any circumstance to find the defendant; and (iv) even if the defendant's statement was made, the victim did not have any particular response or movement at the time of sexual intercourse, and thus, the victim could have known that the victim was physically and mentally or physically disabled or was using the victim; and (v) the victim did not respond to this promptly as alleged by the defendant.