A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not intend to rape a victim due to violence or intimidation, and only attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim's intention of having consented to sexual intercourse. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of rape or injury by rape.

The defendant's act did not reach the extent of making it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim.

The injury of a victim is naturally cured, and is not accompanied by rape.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: “2. Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the part of the lower judgment, on the ground that in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the adopted evidence, the Defendant committed the instant crime with the intent to commit rape, and that the Defendant’s coercion was starting to commit the instant crime of rape at the time when the Defendant forced the Defendant to drive on the victim’s chests and to talk with the victim, and that the Defendant’s hump and tension injury caused by the act closely related to the instant crime of rape, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute an extremely minor injury that could cause natural therapy within a short period of time and not interfere with daily life.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and examined evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.