A. The misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts is not a situation where the victim was unable to resist or lose his mind and body.

The defendant did not have a sexual intercourse against the victim's will, and since he had a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, the defendant did not have the intention of quasi-rape.

A victim's statement is not reliable.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact-finding and legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of education) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, where the victim’s statement is practically the only evidence to prove the facts charged in the crime of rape, the victim’s statement is unreasonable in light of the empirical rule and contradictory in itself, and it does not constitute direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. However, according to the judge’s free judgment, such circumstance may constitute indirect circumstances supporting the facts charged either by supporting the credibility of the victim’s statement or by combining the victim’s statement, which is direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7709, Oct. 25, 2018). (B) In determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court should consider not only whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the logical, logical, or empirical rule, or whether it conforms to the victim’s statement or a third party’s statement before the judge, but also if it is objectively difficult to view the witness’s statement as a substitute witness’s appearance or attitude in the open court after being s oath.