A. The punishment (three years of imprisonment, disclosure of personal information, and four years of notification) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is unreasonable.

B. In light of the overall circumstances that the victim of misunderstanding of facts (not guilty in the reasons) committed rape from the defendant, such as the defendant's appearance of boomed bed B by going to Chinese house and drinking boomed at the Chinese house with the defendant's horse, and the defendant was sexually disabled to the extent that it is difficult for the victim to exercise or exercise his right to sexual self-determination at the time of the instant case, and the defendant used it to have sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of quasi-rape, which is a conjunctive charge, on the ground that the direct cause of the victim's failure to resist was not due to the mental disorder of the victim, but due to the facing of coffee with the victim's drugs, and the faculing of the victim's bamer.2) The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which erred by misapprehending the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. On the date of the first trial on March 19, 2015, the Defendant’s defense counsel held that the crime of inducing sexual intercourse and the crime of inducing quasi-rape constitutes an offense subject to victim’s complaint should be determined ex officio.

1) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 2 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same) (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012);

Pursuant to Article 296, the crime of quasi-rape under paragraph (2) of the decision of the court below is a crime falling under Article 299 of the former Criminal Act and may be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Article 306 of the former Criminal Act.