At the time of the Gu lecture, the victim was not in good condition at the time of dispute between one's own words and money issues.

There is only the defendant's assertion in the course of arbitration to compromise two persons.

In addition, the defendant had already been able to have sexual intercourse with the victim several times before that.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of similar rape among the facts charged, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to a mistake of fact.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

With regard to this, the court below rejected the claim in the clause of "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion (the similar rape in the judgment)" not more than 4 pages of the judgment of the court below and stated the reasons in detail.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all of the circumstances acknowledged in the above reasons of the judgment below are just and acceptable, and further circumstances can be recognized as follows.

In other words, the victim was living in the house with the disabled children.

From May 2015 to September 2015, the defendant re-explord the defendant, and even from September 2015, the defendant did not want to raise the fact to the victim's sexual intercourse or Gu lecture, but he did not want to do so to do so.

In this process, even though the injured party opposed to sexual intercourse in his house in September 2015, the injured party's child opposed to sexual intercourse in his house with the accused, it is not clear that the victim's statement is made to make the injured party unrecoverable by assault or intimidation against the injured party in the process.

In addition, the victim did not agree with the victim.