Accordingly, the appeal was made against the acquittal portion only by the prosecutor, and since the conviction portion in the judgment of the court below is separated from the Do of appeal period (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992). The scope of the trial of this court is limited to

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the statements, etc. of the victim, the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case and was unable to resist, and the defendant can be recognized as having sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the above conditions.

Therefore, although the defendant's crime of quasi-rape is established, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the crime of quasi-rape is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

Judgment

In light of the spirit of substantial direct examination and criminal appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the fact that the court of first instance has the character as an ex post facto examination, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, or where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the time of closing argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the judgment by the appellate court. < Amended by Act No. 7994, Nov. 24, 2006; Act No. 7889, Jul. 24, 2019>