A. The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

At the time of the case, the defendant's sexual organ cannot be inserted, and the defendant's DNA was not detected in the victim's body and clothes.

The injured party has lost conditions, such as the time of exchange due to the symptoms of alcohol addiction, and there is a lusence.

In various circumstances, it is difficult to believe the statements of the victim.

Even if the defendant tried to rape the victim, he attempted to commit rape.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (3 years and six months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court.

(1) A victim made a concrete and consistent statement from an investigative agency to the court of original instance.

In the court of the court below, the victims E did not have any problem by making false statements about the serious or important matters of the victim's drinking.

“At the time of the instant case, the victim did not seem to have been under the influence of alcohol when in conversations with the victim.”

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “(4), 12 pages of the stenographic record of the examination of witnesses E of the lower court (the fourth, 12th page of the witness examination of the witness E of the lower court), and the investigative agency also considered the victim in the instant case, and the victim’s statement was consistent and believed.

In light of the facts stated in the statement “(see, e.g., the 127th page of the investigation record), the credibility of the statement made by the victim solely on the ground that “if the injured party has proven that he/she was her, and drinking, he/she would have any more severe evidence.”