All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Illegal sentencing of Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

The Defendant initially found the Defendant guilty of special intimidation, on May 14, 2018, and on February 23, 2020 (referring to the part acknowledged by the lower court as a reduced fact among the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape)). However, the lower court explicitly withdrawn the above assertion on the second trial date.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles [the part not guilty on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes] Defendant had an intention to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim from the time of initial assault or intimidation against the victim; the victim was also subject to sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s assault or intimidation accompanied by the possession of a beer, under the suppression of resistance against the victim.

In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement; (b) the Defendant’s act of assault and intimidation against the Defendant’s victim cannot be separated from the Defendant’s continuous assault and intimidation against the Defendant’s victim; and (c) as at the time of interscoping, it may be deemed that the Defendant continued to possess beer disease even at the time of sexual intercourse with the victim; and (d) the Defendant’s act of assault and intimidation against the victim, which led the victim to the suppression of resistance, may be recognized as having committed sexual intercourse with the victim after the Defendant committed assault and intimidation against the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape) that he/she committed rape by carrying a beer's disease.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too minor.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is consistent with the legal doctrine and its stated reasoning.