Since only the defendant appealed against this, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the probation order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 21-8 and Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, did not drink a stroke beverage, and had sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement with the victim, taken a stroke image with the victim’s consent.

The victim's statement on this issue is not consistent and is not reliable because there is an ambiguous part.

The victim cannot be determined to have been in the state of mental disorder on the ground that the victim was unable to memory the situation as at the time stated in the facts charged of this case, and there is a possibility that he/she will not memory his/her behavior in the state of awareness at the

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility.

B. The original sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the victim’s statement, etc., in so doing, the Defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim, who was stroke-m and did not have ordinary consciousness by using the drink, and who had sexual intercourse with the victim.