A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s state of non-performance due to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. (1) The victim did not have to resist due to taking place, and even if the Defendant was objectively unable to resist, the Defendant did not have been aware of this. (2) In so doing, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s state of non-performance due to taking place by the victim. (1) The victim took place at the investigative agency up to the trial of the lower court up to the day of the case, at the time of the lower court, both the Defendant and the Defendant’s body were memory, but the circumstances leading up to or before the Defendant, and the Defendant did not appear to have sexual intercourse. (2) According to CCTV images, the victim was unable to take the victim’s body and the victim’s body on the day of the case.